How much room do we have in "describing how to apply" [was Re: examples of sets of documents]

David,

Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear.  The constraint is in the 
limitations we are placing on ourselves in "describing how to apply".  
Based I believe primarily on statements from Gregg (who is arguably our 
best authority here, given that he is a WCAG WG co-chair), we are not to 
do more than single word or phrase replacements in our "describing how 
to apply" work.  That constraint isn't found in such wording in our 
charter.

And I am simply - again - pointing out that we may not manage to find a 
way to reach consensus on "describing how to apply" some of the 
remaining few SCs WITHOUT doing more than single word or phrase 
replacements (plus NOTEs, etc. as we have already been doing).  And 
therefore, I am suggesting that we have a discussion with WCAG WG at 
some point about that topic.  As well as a discussion, at some point, 
about the idea of saying for a few SCs "we don't believe these apply" 
(in certain situations, etc.).

And... given how long we've been working on these and not reaching 
consensus, I think that time may be soon.


Look, there needs to be a point in time where, if we haven't reached 
consensus after trying really hard, we stop trying and do something 
else.  That something else might be "state that we couldn't reach 
consensus and put our pencils down and declare ourselves done".  OR it 
might be that we go back to WCAG WG and talk about what other options we 
might have besides simply stating that we couldn't reach consensus (e.g. 
the exploring whether we need to retain the two constraints I outlined 
in my previous e-mail).  I MUCH prefer exploring these constraints with 
WCAG to simply saying "we couldn't reach consensus" and then stopping.  
It might lead to something more satisfying, and of more use to consumers 
of our output.


Peter

On 9/13/2012 7:51 AM, David MacDonald wrote:
>
> > 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).
>
> I think our job is to see how the existing WCAG will apply. Our 
> Charter to which we all agreed says this.
>
> The objective of WCAG2ICT Task Force is to develop documentation 
> describing **how to apply** WCAG 2.0 and its principles, guidelines, 
> and success criteria to non-Web Information and Communications 
> Technologies (ICT). As part of this work, the Task Force will also 
> review WCAG 2.0 Conformance <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#conformance> 
> in the context of how it might apply to non-web ICT.
>
> We've discussed this before and I don't think our role is to reframe 
> the charter. I think we are making good progress.
>
> Cheers
>
> David MacDonald
>
> **
>
> *Can**Adapt**Solutions Inc.*//
>
> /"Enabling the Web"/
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
> *From:*Peter Korn [mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com]
> *Sent:* September-13-12 10:22 AM
> *To:* Gregg Vanderheiden
> *Cc:* Hoffman, Allen; Loïc Martínez Normand; Gregg Vanderheiden; 
> public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: examples of sets of documents
>
> Gregg,
>
> 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).
>
>
> Peter
>
> 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
>

-- 
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