W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: Proposal: reincorporate multiplexer into main doc

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:12:16 -0400
Message-ID: <416BE640.6040408@utoronto.ca>
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
CC: 'Matt May' <mcmay@w3.org>, w3c-wai-au@w3.org

I agree with Matt's points (a)-(d). The separate document helped us 
think more clearly about the problem but it is probably time for the 
ATAG 2.0 conformance scheme to come in from the cold and rejoin the main 
guidelines document. I think the simultaneous release of ATAG and WCAG 
that Matt envisions would be beneficial to both documents.

I do, however, still see value in allowing conformance to ATAG 2.0 "with 
respect to" EITHER WCAG 1.0 or WCAG 2.0. My reasons have to do with the 
following lags:

(1) policy lag: many Web content developers (i.e. authoring tool 
customers) will have Web accessibility policies tied to WCAG 1.0. 
Authoring tools should be free to serve these customers and still meet 
ATAG 2.0.

(2) development lag: it can take two years or more for features to make 
it from the drawing board to an authoring tool. Tool makers that made 
good faith efforts to increase accessibility by incorporating support 
for WCAG 1.0 a year or more ago should not be prevented from meeting 
ATAG 2.0.

Of course, I would like to keep the wording that strongly recommends 
upgrading to WCAG 2.0 support ASAP.



Jan Richards, M.Sc.
User Interface Design Specialist
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC), University of Toronto

   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
   Phone: 416-946-7060
   Fax:   416-971-2896

Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

> I think you are absolutely correct.
> I also think that it will make WAI look like it has its act together.
> Also, if you get done early - we can use your help on evaluating and
> polishing WCAG. 
> Gregg
>  -- ------------------------------ 
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
> Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> Director - Trace R & D Center 
> University of Wisconsin-Madison 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On Behalf
> Of Matt May
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 6:26 PM
> To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> Subject: Proposal: reincorporate multiplexer into main doc
> Hi all,
> Jan and I have been discussing how to deal with the WCAG 1/2 ambiguity. 
> At the last f2f, we had the idea of a multiplexer document that would be 
> a second Recommendation, and would point to WCAG 1 for conformance until 
> WCAG 2 came out, at which point it would be updated.
> We agreed that this is probably not really the best way to go about 
> things, due to the complexity it would cause us and the readers of the 
> spec. So I'd like to propose the following:
> 1) Bring the contents of this multiplexer document back into ATAG 2 proper;
> 2) Hold ATAG 2 at Proposed Recommendation status until WCAG 2 is at the 
> same level;
> 3) Work on the WCAG 2 conformance requirements when it is complete; and
> 4) Release WCAG 2 and ATAG 2 simultaneously.
> The benefits of this approach are that we will only offer one target 
> document, and no complicating directions coming from elsewhere; and that 
> maintenance work on the document itself will be zero once it goes to 
> Recommendation. Additionally, should WCAG 2 zig when we expected it to 
> zag, we will be prepared to update our document to adequately reflect 
> that. (However, should WCAG in fact XAG, then we have a whole different 
> problem. Ha ha ha. Sorry, just a little WAI humor.)
> The drawback would be that we will then be tied to WCAG 2's development 
> schedule. However, this is minor. Proposed Rec is usually a stable 
> enough status that developers of authoring tools will be prepared to 
> work toward it. Additionally, I believe that ATAG 2 would receive much 
> more attention, and be better connected to WCAG 2 long term, if they are 
> released and promoted together at Recommendation. This has been done 
> with other specs, most recently RDF and OWL, with success.
> Thoughts? Concerns?
> -
> m
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 14:13:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:51 UTC