W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: EOWG: Substantially updated Standards Harmonization document

From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 17:13:23 -0400
Message-Id: <E1QZrPo-0003va-8J@lisa.w3.org>
To: wed@csulb.edu
Cc: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Hi Wayne,

Thanks very much for your comments. Replies below.

At 02:29 AM 6/23/2011 -0700, Wayne Dick wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>The Harmonization Survey is not open yet.  So, here are my comments.
>
>There is a little word smithing that may or may not be worth
>reporting. Most of the rest is good to go.  I suggest one real change.
>
>"In addition to these fundamental principles, WCAG 2.0 includes  ... 
>following:
>
>Then follows 4 guidelines that look like they were chosen at random.
>It seems less arbitrary and not so much more space to just paste in
>WCAG 2.0 at a glance.  We don't have 100% agreement on final language
>yet, so I would leave final word smithing to the editors taste.

I thought we discussed the possibility of pasting in "at a glance" 
recently, but I could neither find nor recall what we decided on 
that, so I left it with examples and then principles for now. I agree 
that the items listed sound a bit random, which could be misleading. 
I was concerned that adding it would add a bigger chunk of text, and 
that we'd have to surround it with disclaimers so that people 
wouldn't go off and try to standardize on the "At a Glance" document itself:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/glance/

Let's take this as one of our discussion items on tomorrow's call.

>Otherwise, I like the document.  Local governments may cringe at the
>prospect of letting someone else do it for them, but that is what we
>want them to do.  The chances that a rewrite of WCAG 2.0 will yield a
>better document are tiny.  Look at how much work it took us.
>
>At first I felt uncomfortable with Judy's bold assertions to just do
>it our way, but really it makes sense.

Glad it's looking better. I'm trying to carefully keep to a tone of 
"here are the advantages of using WCAG 2.0 straight up," with less 
emphasis on "do it our way." And the good reasons for harmonizing 
have expanded from people's input.

>The document does not address how to extend WCAG 2 to cover mistakes,
>and this will lead to fragmentation, but we'll probably learn from
>that too.

I had added something on extensible techniques, but I guess that is 
too buried. I will look for another place to mention it.

Thanks,

- Judy


>Wayne
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 21:26:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:58 GMT