W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org > September 2012

Re: examples of sets of documents

From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 07:22:20 -0700
Message-ID: <5051EC1C.2090406@oracle.com>
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <ez1testing@gmail.com>
CC: "Hoffman, Allen" <Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV>, Loďc Martínez Normand <loic@fi.upm.es>, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>

We have been laboring under two critical constraints:

 1. That we must find a way to make all SCs apply
 2. That we cannot - in our NON-NORMATIVE document - re-cast the
    criteria based on the purpose & the significantly different world of
    non-web ICT to make it better apply

In this most thread we've been pushing against the first constraint.  
But several of us have also suggested that we need to question the 
second constraint (with WCAG WG).


On 9/12/2012 10:56 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>> Allen, Alex, gang,
>> I do think this is one of a small handful of SCs...
> less than a handful
> between 4 and 2 at this point
> And, I think these are important and do apply.  We just are having trouble finding the exact words for them but we are getting there.   I also note that they are all cognitive ones, and they always are tougher and always get the short shrift too -  so I hate to dump them because of terminology issues.
> thanks
> Gregg

Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to 
developing practices and products that help protect the environment
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 14:24:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:17:46 UTC