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

RE: Conformance claims, 4.2, and techniques

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 23:43:06 -0500
Message-Id: <200504060443.j364hAB5021491@radiant-crowne-plaza.rieo.cpl>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hmmmm

 

An interesting question is 

Are we saying that we can't avoid describing baselines but we shouldn't be
setting them? 

 

Still trying to sort this all out but I think we are understanding the
problem much better even if we haven't yet figured out what the answer is
yet. 

 

Sometime soon I am going to call for us to collect all our thoughts and sort
them into

 

1 - we agree

2 - we think this is right   (or we think we agree something is wrong)

3- we don't know what to think about these - have no group opinion (s) yet

4 - we have different strong opinions on these 

 

In the meantime - it might be useful to think of candidates for these so we
can figure out where we are as a group. 


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 

 

 


  _____  


From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of John M Slatin
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 10:14 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Conformance claims, 4.2, and techniques

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
<http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility> /research/accessibility 

 
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 04:43:16 UTC

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