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

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

From: Kiran Kaja <kkaja@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:11:56 +0100
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, "'Peter Korn'" <peter.korn@oracle.com>
CC: "'Gregg Vanderheiden'" <ez1testing@gmail.com>, "'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>
Message-ID: <14C0E778294B30498B5912136BFA6F5701927019D0CD@eurmbx01.eur.adobe.com>
"Perhaps I've been around committees too long, but, I actually think we've been moving at a whirlwind pace compared to every other committee I've been on over the last 12 years, and even while being hampered by being a summer initiative, vacations, etc... "

I thought the timeframe for this task force was kept deliberately short. And this was by intension. If we had taken longer than planned (which we actually may have), we wouldn't have been able to use this excellent piece of work in the Mandate 376 Standard.

Kiran Kaja
Accessibility Engineer
Adobe Systems Europe
+44 (0) 1628 590005 (Direct)
80005 (Internal)
+44 (0) 78330 91999 (Mobile)
Kkaja@adobe.com<mailto:Kkaja@adobe.com>
Twitter.com/kirankaja12

From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: 13 September 2012 17:14
To: 'Peter Korn'
Cc: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; 'Hoffman, Allen'; 'Loďc Martínez Normand'; 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Subject: RE: How much room do we have in "describing how to apply" [was Re: examples of sets of documents]

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

Perhaps I've been around committees too long, but, I actually think we've been moving at a whirlwind pace compared to every other committee I've been on over the last 12 years, and even while being hampered by being a summer initiative, vacations, etc...

It has been just the last couple of weeks that we've had to deal with the cans we kicked down the road...

Just like everyone on the committee, I have lots of paid work that I'd like to get to, some of which I've turned down to do this... but I think this is way too important to give up so easily...

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 11:38 AM
To: David MacDonald
Cc: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; 'Hoffman, Allen'; 'Loďc Martínez Normand'; 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Subject: 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

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







--
[cid:image001.gif@01CD91DB.423A6140]<http://www.oracle.com>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522<tel:+1%20650%205069522>
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
[cid:image002.gif@01CD91DB.423A6140]<http://www.oracle.com/commitment>Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment

--
[cid:image001.gif@01CD91DB.423A6140]<http://www.oracle.com>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522<tel:+1%20650%205069522>
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
[cid:image002.gif@01CD91DB.423A6140]<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 17:14:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 September 2012 17:14:21 GMT