W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: Structure of deliverables: are we too PC for our own good?

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 15:47:50 -0400 (EDT)
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
cc: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0109091535180.29794-100000@tux.w3.org>
Clearly what we currently have is not fit to be a recommendation as is. I
don't think anyone in the group would even suggest that we hand over our
current draft and ask for it to go to Last call as is.

However, rather than burn down the foundations, I think we should do
something like Jason suggests, and postpone some of this discussion. However,
I think that in order to make that worthwhile, we need to have the
technology-specific stuff - the bit that makes our work useful.

And to do that we have to switch our focus, from the current part of the
draft (formulating fairly abstract things) to a more mundane and practical
one of identifying the problems, proposing solutions, and gathering these

So on the one hand I propose that this group considers seriously that it
should be looking at some more basic solutions to problems - producing what
are called "techniques" in our jargon.

On the other hand, it is important not to lose sight of the big picture. the
framework that we have, although rough, is a useful way of testing the
techniques to make sure they don't produce more problems than they solve. And
when we have enough of these for a few diffeernt types of problem space, we
could re-examine the WCAG 2 document and see if it works well enough for all
we have.

The process of developing this stuff is iterative - try, test, think, revise,
do it again. And again probably.

There seems to be a subtext in some of this thread of "we are not getting
there, and we are not going anywhere". That doesn't gel with my experience
here - we are making progress, but I do believe that we need to assess where
we put our priority for development work.



Al said "without naming names, this thing isn't useful" (but used more words
and said other things too.

Jason said "can we postpoone this discussion until we have
technology-specific techniques?"

William said I am saying to Athe authoring tools group "keep those techniques
coming folks"

Then Al Gilman said "Kelly has shown the emperor has no clothes", and
explained that this document (My emphasis: as is) is not fit to be a

and most recently

On Sun, 9 Sep 2001, Jonathan Chetwynd wrote:

  Still awaiting more feedback on:
  Script Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
Received on Sunday, 9 September 2001 15:47:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:38 UTC