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

RE: Guidelines or Standards

From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:20:17 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20051212091252.00ad1260@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

At 07:38 AM 12/12/2005 -0500, you wrote:

> > So I think we are in a situation where we must:
> > - focus on writing a good technical guideline standard (called a 
> recommendation in W3C parlance).
> > - wording it in a form most appropriate to this task;
> > - but keeping in mind that others may be using it for guidance for 
> regulatory activity and we don't want to write it in a way that makes it 
> hard for them to do that well.
>
>Thinking about this some more, it seems to me that WCAG (1.0 and 2.0) are 
>very different than the other W3C Technical Recommendations with which I 
>am familiar.  For lack of better terminology, WCAG is along the lines of 
>usage whereas HTML, XML, CSS, SVG, etc. are all very much detailed 
>definitions.  This leads me to a few questions:
>
>(1) Does the W3C have guidance as to the format of TR, especially the 
>"lowest level" parts (the success criteria in the case of WCAG 2.0)?

The QA Framework: Specification Guidelines [1] is a possible resource 
pertinent as an answer to your Question #1.


>(2) Are there other W3C TR that are along the lines of useage in a fashion 
>similar to WCAG?

The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines [2] is another W3C 
specification in development  that may be relevant as an answer to your
Question #2.

Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST


[1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/
[2]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-ATAG20-20051123/
Received on Monday, 12 December 2005 14:21:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:41 GMT