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

RE: Technology specific techniques

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 11:00:02 -0500
To: <boland@nist.gov>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000401c5c9c5$e7b7cd50$9061c346@NC6000BAK>

You can always use them.  They don't have to be in the Guide doc.  You just
have better justification if they are.

And yes- the guide docs will be periodically updated.   Annually would be
great.  More often would be confusing I would think.  


 
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 boland@nist.gov
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 6:33 AM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Technology specific techniques


What is the process if one wants to use techniques not yet discovered by the
WCAG WG to claim that those techniques are "sufficient" for satisfying the 
stated SCs?   Is there a process by which such techniques can be "added" to 
the Guide Docs in the future, after review by the WCAG WG?   In other words,

is there a Guide Doc management system in place (it seems that these may be
"living" documents, in which the list of techniques included is likely to 
change over time)?   Perhaps we would want to include somewhere in the Guide

Doc structure an encouragement to submit previously-undiscovered techniques
for consideration for inclusion in future (editions, versions?) of Guide
Docs?


Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST
 
Quoting Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>:

> 
> The only difference you have is that the words "listed below" are removed.
> I'm not sure that changes things except to make it unclear where they 
> would look.  Ah,  I see what you are getting at.
> 
> Hmmm
> 
> Please note that those are the only techniques that can be used for the
> section where this sentence lies.   This sentence is in the section that
> says the following options are deemed sufficient.  That sufficiency is 
> based on the list of techniques that are in the guide doc.  You can 
> use other techniques - but they are not necessarily deemed sufficient 
> by the WG.  And the working group can deem that things not listed are 
> part of what they considered sufficient since they didn't consider them at
the time.
> 
> So it is true that other things can be used.  But other things can't 
> be used if the reader wants to use the "sufficiency" statements in the
guide doc.
> 
> 
> So in that section the words "listed below" are accurate and 
> necessary.  But we may have to change the front of the sentence to 
> limit the use of the list to just the sufficiency statements so that 
> we do not give the impression that you have identified as potential.
> 
> That said, lets see......
> 
> How about
> 
> 
> "The technology specific techniques included in these sufficiency 
> statements are listed below.  Choose one that matches the technology you
are using."
> 
> 
>  
> 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 Loretta Guarino Reid
> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 11:23 PM
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: Technology specific techniques
> 
> 
> The template we have been using and many of the proposed guide docs
contain
> the following sentence:
> 
> "For the technology-specific techniques, see the options for the
technology
> you are using listed immediately below."
> 
> I think it would be easy to read this to mean that only the listed
> technologies in the guide doc can be used, and I don't think this is what
we
> intend. I'd like to suggest replacing it with the sentence
> 
> "For the technology-specific techniques, see the options for the
technology
> you are using."
> 
> Loretta
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2005 16:00:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:40 GMT