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

RE: Issue with intro to "advisory techniques"

From: David MacDonald <befree@magma.ca>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:38:30 -0500
Message-Id: <200512151738.jBFHcUH8010366@mail3.magma.ca>
To: "'John M Slatin'" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, "'Gregg Vanderheiden'" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi John

 

Are you saying that each technique in the "sufficient" section must
*entirely* address all aspects of the SC. Or are you saying that each
technique in the sufficient section must satisfy some part of the SC. I
think we could get into some muddy waters if we require the each sufficient
technique entirely address all aspects of the SC. I think if a technique can
be used to successfully address some aspect of a SC then we should not
discourage its use. I think that web designers should be able to use the
Sufficient Techniques as a painting palette. They can choose, and combine
techniques from this palette to meet their needs with respect to the SC.

 

I fear that if we do require that each Technique completely satisfy *all*
aspects of a SC, then we are going to have to move a lot of our current
sufficient techniques to the optional pile. For instance SC 2.1.1 says:

 

2.1.1 All
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-20051123/appendixA.html#functiondef>
functionality of the content is operable in a non time-dependent manner
through a
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-20051123/appendixA.html#keybrd-interfac
edef> keyboard interface, except where the task requires analog,
time-dependent input. (Level 1)

 

The only sufficient technique in there is Using
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20051123/tech-placeholder
.htm>  keyboard-controllable event handlers for all functionality.   This
satisfies one aspect of the SC but not *all* aspects of the SC. So should it
be moved to the Optional section because it doesn't fully satisfy the SC?
Yet in the advisory section for this GL, the technique "using unique key
combinations in drop down lists" is said to be insufficient (under the
current wording of the boilerplate).  I personally think the technique
belongs in the Sufficient section.

 

I was given some very good techniques by some of Canada's top accessibility
people, some of whom were on the WCAG 1.0 committee.  These techniques ended
up in the optional sections for reasons that I question. I didn't think they
belonged there but I didn't want to make an issue of it. Later, the new
wording of the "boilerplate" seemed to send these "optional" techniques into
further oblivion. I would like to go back to these experts with a good
explanation, and right now I don't have one. And that is why I think we can
at least do something to the wording of the boilerplate that does not
discourage people from using them. I don't think this is primarily editorial
because of the ramifications of adoption of the advisory techniques may be
affected by the wording of the boilerplate.

 

Regards

David MacDonald

 

.Access empowers people
            .barriers disable them.

www.eramp.com

  _____  

From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of John M Slatin
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:57 AM
To: David MacDonald; Gregg Vanderheiden; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Issue with intro to "advisory techniques"

 

There are two issues in this exchange:

 

1. *WOrding* of boilerplate text under Optional (advisory) techniques
heading. This is primarily editorial.

 

2. David's question: <q>Are we sure that the optional techniques are *never*
sufficient?</q>

 

This is substantive. In my personal view, any techniques thta *are*
sufficient to satisfy an SC should be listed *as* sufficient techniques. The
optional (advisory) section should list only those techniques which don't
satisfy the SC when implemented by themselves but are good things to
consider *in addition* to the sufficient techniques.

 

We can incorporate this into reviews of techniques as we get to that stage.

 

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 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of David MacDonald
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 10:44 AM
To: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Issue with intro to "advisory techniques"

Hi Gregg

 

Are we sure that the optional techniques are *never* sufficient? I think the
proposed wording still throws a negative spin on the optional section. I
think I understand what you are getting at, that we don't want people
claiming conformance by throwing a couple of optional techniques onto their
web site and avoiding the sufficient techniques. But I am concerned that the
negative spin (i.e., "not sufficient", and "not required") will turn the
optional techniques section into a boneyard. In some cases there are some
awesome techniques in there (such as 2.1 "using unique letter combinations
in drop down lists") that I would hate to see shelved. And there actually
may be rare occasions when an optional technique may be perfectly sufficient
to satisfy the SC. I don't think we can rule that out given that the "how to
meet." doc is non-normative, and that the important thing is that they meet
the SC, not that they are forced to use specific techniques.

 

How about this, as a middle ground? I think the words "optional,"
"advisory," "additional" and "supplements" below make it clear that they are
the optional techniques are *not* intended by the working group to be
replacements for the sufficient techniques. 

 

<proposed>

Optional Techniques (Advisory) for 2.3.1

The following techniques are provided to supplement the sufficient
techniques, and may enhance accessibility.  Not all of these techniques can
be used in all cases. However, some of them may be effective in some
situations and for some types of users.</proposed>

 

 

.Access empowers people
            .barriers disable them.

www.eramp.com


  _____  


From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:05 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Issue with intro to "advisory techniques"

 

Hi David,

 

 

RE Validation:

Please check the latest draft.  A couple meetings ago we moved validation
from advisory to sufficient.

 

RE the other comment:

I think that you are correct.  By saying that optional are not required it
raised the question about the others being required.  We will have to fix
this.   

 

Because they are listed just below the Sufficient - we do have to do
something to make sure that it is clear they are different than the
sufficient techniques.

 

Hmmmm

 

How about

 

<proposed>The following additional techniques are not sufficient for meeting
this success criterion but should be considered as additional ways to make
content more accessible than specifically required by the success criterion.
Not all of these techniques can be used in all cases. However, some of them
may be very effective in some situations and for some types of
users.</proposed>

 

 


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 David MacDonald
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 9:02 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org; 'Gregg Vanderheiden'
Subject: Issue with intro to "advisory techniques"

 

All of the advisory sections of the "How to meet." doc say:

 "Although *not required* for conformance, the following additional
techniques should be considered." 

By saying the advisory techniques are "not required," are we not implying
that the core techniques are "required"? It seems to imply a requirement of
the core techniques.

The other problem is that some of the solutions in the advisory sections are
very useful and we are almost deterring people with the current language. I
think this is particularly evident in the 4.1 advisory section where we find
"Validation" as an optional technique. We are almost discouraging people
with our current language. Another place it strikes me as deterring an
extremely useful technique is in the 2.1 advisory to use unique letter
combinations in drop down lists. 

There actually may be cases where someone can meet the SC by using some of
the optional techniques, and we don't want to imply that that is not
possible. I think we need to reword this. I recommend the following:

<current>Although not required for conformance, the following additional
techniques should be considered in order to make content more accessible.
Not all techniques can be used or would be effective in all
situations.</current>

<proposed>The following additional techniques should also be considered as
ways to make content more accessible. Not all of these techniques can be
used in all cases. However, some of them may be effective in some
situations.</proposed>

David MacDonald

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

.Access empowers people
            .barriers disable them.

www.eramp.com

 
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2005 17:39:18 GMT

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