W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

Conformance claims, 4.2, and techniques

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 22:14:10 -0500
Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3BFB7446@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Fascinating. It's as if the proposal coming out of the LA face to face--
the proposal that WCAG 2.0 *not* establish a baseline-- has actually
freed us up to talk more systematically about what the baseline should
be, and to acknowledge that we are (and maybe have to be) assuming at
least one baseline.
 
In LA, three groups, working independently, came to the conclusion that
WCAG 2.0 can't define a baseline. In the two weeks since then, three
groups, workign independently, have each found themselves in one way or
another requiring a baseline.
 
The techniques analysis assumes two (or is it three) baseline
conditions.
 
The 4.2 analysis writes 4.2 out of existence (not necessarily a bad
thing!), and then writes an actual *definition* of the word "baseline"
(which is a *wonderful* idea!) and offers proposals for how/where it
should be discussed in the set of documents supporting WCAG 2.0.
 
And the conformance analysis leads to a proposed template that includes
a slot for an optional technology baseline/profile, in keeping with the
"sense of the meeting" that came out in our idea-harvesting on the call
last week.  This has to be optional because the normative document that
defines conformance (WCAG 2.0) doesn't set a baseline, so it can't be a
required element of the conformance claim.
 
I hear two common elements in these three analyses, which also dovetail
with the analysis of how the No-Baseline-in WCAG 2.0 approach affects
the guidelines and SC themselves:
(1) that there is at least one "baseline," probably more; and
(2) that the normative WCAG 2.0 document is *not* where the baseline(s)
live(s)
 
Having a proposed definition for the word "baseline* will help us, I
think. If we can come to agreement on that definition, then it will be
substantially easier to agree on how to apply it to different scenarios,
and so on. That in turn will allow the Techniques group to move forward,
I think.
 
There are still a bunch of unresolved questions. But I think we're
getting somewhere.
 
John
 
 

"Good design is accessible design."

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director 
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin 
FAC 248C 
1 University Station G9600 
Austin, TX 78712 
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu 
Web  <http://www.ital.utexas.edu/>
http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility 

 
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 03:14:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:36 UTC