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

Re: Key results and recommendations from Face to Face

From: Doyle-Work <dburnett@sesa.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 09:45:01 -0900
To: Michael Cooper <michaelc@watchfire.com>, W3C Web Content <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BE683C9D.5117%dburnett@sesa.org>

To The List -

Of all the "stuff" on baseline that's gone back and forth since the Los
Angeles face to face, this is well-put, Michael.

I do believe that authors/developers will often not "get it" but having a
non-normative baseline as a WCAG recommendation or a place to start is a
good idea.  This leaves the door open for developers to think and use
technologies not yet available and still be accessibility conscience.  It's
likely that our recommended baseline will/can change over time in much the
same way as the techniques document will be fluid and need tweaks along the


Doyle Burnett
Education and Training Specialist
Multiple Disabilities Program
Special Education Service Agency

On 3/24/05 7:56 AM, "Michael Cooper" <michaelc@watchfire.com> wrote:

> Yeah - just so people aren't confused, what Gregg said is what I intended to
> say. The WCAG group should provide a _recommended_ baseline in a non-normative
> document. But it is only a recommendation, not binding on conformance, and
> authors can (and sometimes, should) use a different baseline. This is in
> preference to the other options I can think of that don't work:
> * Provide a normative baseline - that's what we've been struggling with
> * Fail to provide a baseline recommendation of any kind - then people will be
> struggling to implement WCAG "blind" - without adequate information, and
> baselines will be all over the map. They may be anyway, but at least a
> recommendation from us should help to consolidate them.
> Michael
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
>> Sent: March 24, 2005 11:40 AM
>> To: Michael Cooper; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: Key results and recommendations from Face to Face
>> We can't have a baseline specified in a non-normative doc.
>> We can have
>> suggestions for what people would use, and that can be
>> non-normative since
>> it is just a suggestion and can be followed or ignored while still
>> conforming to WCAG.  But a baseline that is specified by us
>> is a normative
>> item and needs to be in a normative doc.
>> Gregg
>>  -- ------------------------------
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>> Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
>> Director - Trace R & D Center
>> University of Wisconsin-Madison
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
>> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
>> Of Michael Cooper
>> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 9:26 AM
>> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: Key results and recommendations from Face to Face
>> Hmm... I echo Jason's concern that this essentially says
>> "always provide
>> HTML backups, forever". I would prefer that we take the
>> approach of having a
>> non-normative, WCAG-recommended baseline, at a level above
>> the techniques,
>> probably in the document currently known as Addenda. This
>> baseline would be
>> for World Wide Web use, i.e., public sites with an international or
>> unspecified audience, and would be the one we strongly
>> recommend authors use
>> unless they have specific reasons they can use a higher
>> baseline. In the
>> year 2005, this baseline may say what Wendy suggests, provide
>> fallbacks for
>> scripts, plugins, images, etc. In the year 2007, we might be
>> able to change
>> the recommended baseline and say "scripts and plugin X do not need
>> fallbacks, but other plugins and images still do". This way,
>> we can provide
>> a recommendation that is not normative but we strongly expect
>> authors to
>> follow, and is current to the technology of the day.
>> I know there are concerns about fractioning of standards if
>> we do this -
>> even though sites all conform to WCAG 2, they use different
>> baselines (or
>> some use the old recommended one and some use the new
>> recommended one) - and
>> we need to talk through that issue. But I think we're going to get
>> fractioning no matter what we do, and this allows us to make concrete
>> recommendations while still enabling implementors to make the most
>> appropriate choice. We do have to trust them to make a smart
>> choice, but I
>> don't see a way around that.
>> Michael
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Wendy Chisholm
>>> 3. If a decision maker *can not* make further assumptions about the
>>> audience (because the decision maker is publishing to the
>> whole Web or 
>>> doesn't have control over user tools), then the content is
>> functional 
>>> when technologies are turned off or not supported *or* an
>> alternative 
>>> must be provided.
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2005 18:49:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:52 UTC