W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: Please review: R2 proposal to supplement the current R1 pro posal

From: john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 14:50:31 -0500
Message-ID: <6AC4E20EED49D411941400D0B77E52F006595FAF@forum.cc.utexas.edu>
To: "'Wendy A Chisholm'" <wendy@w3.org>, "'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I have no objection to the new proposed R2.

I would like to suggest one small but (IMHO) important adjustment to the
proposed R1.  The pertinent part of the statement as proposed below reads as
follows:

"...it should be easy for policy 
makers and individuals responsible for implementing policy  to understand, 
cite and/or adopt WCAG 2.0 ..."

This is pretty much the language I proposed during the telecon two weeks
ago.  However, my proposal did not include the "/or" (in "and/or adopt WCAG
2.0"(, and I believe that "and/or adopt" is considerably weaker than "and
adopt."  So I propose that we delete "/or" from the proposed R1, and make it
read as follows:

==amended section of R1 begins==
"...it should be easy for policy 
makers and individuals responsible for implementing policy  to understand, 
cite and adopt WCAG 2.0 ..."
==amended section of proposed R1 ends===

John Slatin



-----Original Message-----
From: Wendy A Chisholm [mailto:wendy@w3.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 2:34 pm
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Please review: R2 proposal to supplement the current R1 proposal


Hello,

Charles commented to the wai-gl list, and Lisa Seeman agreed that the R1 
statement ought to make it clear that while we try to make our deliverables 
understandable and usable by policy makers, we will not let them drive our 
decisions about technical requirements.

Judy, Gregg, Jason, Charles and I have discussed the following 
proposal.  We would like to give you all until this Friday (19 April) to 
review.  If there are no objections, this will be incorporated into a new 
draft of the Requirements and we will aim to publish to TR early next week. 
We will also allow time for discussion at this week's telecon.

We are proposing a new R2 to supplement the existing R1 proposal.

R1: WCAG 2.0 deliverables should be more understandable and usable by a 
wider audience than was anticipated for WCAG 1.0, including policy 
makers.   While the WCAG WG does not set policy, harmonization of 
accessibility requirements helps drive demand for supporting 
implementations in Web applications; therefore it should be easy for policy 
makers and individuals responsible for implementing policy  to understand, 
cite and/or adopt WCAG 2.0 and related deliverables.

R2:   We will try to express the technical requirements in language that 
policy makers can understand, adopt, and use, but technical requirements 
are not driven by policy; they are driven by the needs of users with 
disabilities.

-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
/--
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 15:50:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:19 GMT