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

RE: Proposal: reincorporate multiplexer into main doc

From: Karen Mardahl <karen@mardahl.dk>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 07:55:47 +0200
To: <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Cc: "'Gregg Vanderheiden'" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Message-ID: <000001c4b0e9$4a345a30$0401a8c0@karen>

I think this sounds like a good plan as well (including Matt's WAI humor!) I
think it sends a positive political message - WAI is a team, as Gregg
indicates. And it should increase a better awareness of the relationship of
the two documents all across the board, which in turn should boost the
quality of both docs. (Spoken like a true idealist!)

Practically speaking, I didn't look way back in the past to see where we had
this type of info - but aren't we talking about bringing the multiplexer
into section 2 of ATAG20? Isn't that where it would now belong? And that is
also where we should put (or rather, keep) the conformance issues mentioned
by Jan below?

And good idea about encouraging upgrading to WCAG 20 (and that's OK when it
is not 100% finished?)

regards, Karen Mardahl

>-----Original Message-----
>From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jan Richards
>Sent: 12. oktober 2004 16:12
>To: Gregg Vanderheiden
>Cc: 'Matt May'; w3c-wai-au@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Proposal: reincorporate multiplexer into main doc
>
>
>
>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.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Cheers,
>Jan
>
>-- 
>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 Wednesday, 13 October 2004 05:55:46 UTC

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