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

RE: examples of sets of documents

From: Hoffman, Allen <Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 17:02:42 +0000
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, 'Peter Korn' <peter.korn@oracle.com>, 'Gregg Vanderheiden' <ez1testing@gmail.com>
CC: 'Loďc Martínez Normand' <loic@fi.upm.es>, 'Gregg Vanderheiden' <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9F7B0040F7A7C4428E160959229DE9F3068EBCB1@D2ASEPRSH126.DSA.DHS>
You write:
I think our job is to see how the existing WCAG will apply. Our Charter to which we all agreed says this.

What if it doesn't?
How would you all like to recognize this reality when it is the case?

Who made the determination that the SC(s) always apply and how was that determination arrived at?
I'm baffled at this approach to some basic questions.
I question if this assumption is even accurate.


From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:51 AM
To: 'Peter Korn'; 'Gregg Vanderheiden'
Cc: Hoffman, Allen; 'Loďc Martínez Normand'; 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Subject: RE: examples of sets of documents


> 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

CanAdapt 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; Loďc Martínez Normand; Gregg Vanderheiden; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org<mailto: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



image001.gif
(image/gif attachment: image001.gif)

image002.gif
(image/gif attachment: image002.gif)

Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 17:03:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 September 2012 17:03:21 GMT