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

RE: examples of sets of documents

From: Kiran Kaja <kkaja@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:08:39 +0100
To: "Hoffman, Allen" <Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV>, 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: <14C0E778294B30498B5912136BFA6F5701927019D0CC@eurmbx01.eur.adobe.com>
I agree with Peter and Allen. If we as experts are having difficulty finding examples and agreeing that they are relevant, imagine how difficult it would be for authors who may not really be accessibility experts. It may be time for us to consider that there will be a small number of success criteria that may not be relevant outside of the pure web context and find ways to deal with it.

Kiran Kaja
Accessibility Engineer
Adobe Systems Europe
+44 (0) 1628 590005 (Direct)
80005 (Internal)
+44 (0) 78330 91999 (Mobile)

From: Hoffman, Allen [mailto:Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV]
Sent: 13 September 2012 17:24
To: Peter Korn; Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: Loďc Martínez Normand; Gregg Vanderheiden; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Subject: RE: examples of sets of documents

Completely agree with Peter here.  Simply saying something is true by assumption doesn't actually effect reality, and in my view was the intent of the work we have been doing, e.g. determine applicability "if any", in such alternate environments and contexts.  Setting the bar that the assumption is that application is always feasible really has been a problem for an honest evaluation of these items.

From: Peter Korn [mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:22 AM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: Hoffman, Allen; Loďc Martínez Normand; Gregg Vanderheiden; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Subject: Re: examples of sets of documents


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.



Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522<tel:+1%20650%205069522>
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
[cid:image002.gif@01CD91DA.CCC45790]<http://www.oracle.com/commitment>Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment

(image/gif attachment: image001.gif)

(image/gif attachment: image002.gif)

Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 17:09:42 UTC

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