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

Re: PROPOSED DEFINITION OF "objective"

From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:12:46 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011130104842.028a33d0@localhost>
To: love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough), w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>, wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>, Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Bill,

Reading back in the thread and the minutes, yes it looks like that 
definition may need more discussion -- but I'm assuming that's why Gregg 
put it out there. Seems like a thorny issue to figure out. I'm not sure 
what other approach would work better, but suggestions are welcome.

Looks like WCAG WG is trying to set up a re-usable process for making 
determinations on testing questions not yet on the table. The crux of the 
definition might be who's considered an expert. Charles suggested that, and 
so did you. Maybe that's the part of the definition that needs the most 
work -- in reading it, I assumed that it would include people with 
disabilities who have need for the accommodation in a specific technique -- 
plus some knowledge of how it can be tested for. But it's not spelled out, 
and other people might make different assumptions about who's intended. The 
wording in the draft definition says "people who have knowledge of the 
relevant tech and test methods" which is open to different interpretations. 
One commenter in the minutes suggests "professional" which sounds quite 
exclusive, but that didn't make it into the draft definition. Another 
flavor I get from the minutes is "technology experts" but again that didn't 
make it into the draft definition.

What do you think about "including people with disabilities who have need 
for the accommodation in a specific technique -- and some knowledge of how 
it is tested for"? Or other ideas? Or a diferent approach to addressing 
this issue?

If you want to unsubscribe, you can send a message to 
w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org with "unsubscribe" as the subject line. Note that 
that's not the same address as the mailing list address.

But your comments are still welcome.

- Judy

At 07:05 AM 11/30/01 -0800, you wrote:
>At 01:28 AM 11/30/01 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>So how do we define
>
>"We" exclude "they". Did 80% "consense" on this? If after 80% agreed did 
>anyone propose a "motion to make it unanimous" as happens in most 
>centralized/elitist organizations. Did very many people with 
>"developmental disabilities" get to vote?
>
>I've become so senile that I don't even know how to unsubscribe from this 
>list as well as get my name off that of "active Working Group members."
>
>Count me out.
>
>Unsubscribe.
>
>Remove.
>
>Regrets.
>--
>Love.
>EACH UN-INDEXED/ANNOTATED WEB POSTING WE MAKE IS TESTAMENT TO OUR HYPOCRISY

-- 
Judy Brewer    jbrewer@w3.org    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/LCS Room NE43-355, 200 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA
Received on Friday, 30 November 2001 11:17:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:16 GMT