W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2006

RE: Technique Designations

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 08:58:19 -0500
To: "'Tim Boland'" <frederick.boland@nist.gov>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002701c672a7$85b9d090$ee8cfea9@NC6000BAK>

Hi Tim

I'm not sure what additional direction to give other than it must meet the
SC.   The intent section of How to Meet for the SC can help understand the
intent of the SC but only the SC is the criterion.   Not sure what more we
can say.  Any ideas Tim?  Anyone?

RE Listed vs non-listed techniques.
A technique that is listed has the working group behind it. If someone
questions it the author can always use the HTM doc as backup.  If they use
another technique, then the burden of proof is on them should someone ask.
It is not a better or worse technique for meeting the success criterion. It
is just not identified by the working group as a technique that is
sufficient so it doesn't have that face validity.  Like a paper that has not
yet been reviewed and accepted by a journal.  It is no better or worse a
paper, but if it hasn't been accepted by a class A journal it is more of an
unknown.   Listing only adds credibility - not 'goodness'.   

Non-listed techniques should be submitted for review so that they can be
listed if they are sufficient.  But here we still have the problem with
proprietary technologies since our current position is to not list them.  I
understand why but it makes it harder on people.  We need to revisit this
during implementation and at least document the rationale.  

Thanks Tim.

Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Tim Boland
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 8:26 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Technique Designations


If an offerer uses an unlisted technique (other method) as mentioned
following to "meet" the success criterion (SC) what generic guidance is
available for that offerer to explain exactly why their unlisted technique
(other
method) would meet the SC?
This guidance would not be dependent on the language of a particular
technique, but might suggest, for any such unlisted technique (other
method), steps
(approaches?) that an offerer might take to provide demonstrable assurance
that their technique would meet the SC.
If there is no such guidance, should the WCAG WG make such suggestions?
Otherwise, I think there may be the perception that unlisted techniques
(other methods) may be somehow "less sufficient" than the listed sufficient
techniques, because these other methods have not yet been evaluated by the
WCAG WG for sufficiency..

Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST


At 09:44 PM 5/7/2006 -0500, you wrote:

>Loretta had stated it exactly correct.
>
>Please note that sufficient does NOT mean required.  A sufficient 
>technique (or combination of techniques) is deemed sufficient by the
working group to
>meet the success criterion.   However there may be other methods as well.
>The fact that a technique is not listed does not mean it cannot be used 
>to meet the success criterion (unless of course it is listed 
>specifically as one of the "common failures" of the success criterion).
>
>We used to have wording explaining this better in the instructions.  I 
>see that it is no longer there.  Must have gotten dropped when cleaning 
>up the other wording.
>
>Please post a comment to the public list saying
>
>PROBLEM:  instructions for How to Meet docs describe what 'sufficient' 
>means but do not explain that other technique could also be used 
>(except by inference).
>
>Suggestion: expand description a bit to explain more clearly that 
>'sufficient' doesn't mean 'only'.
>
>
>
>Gregg
>
>  -- ------------------------------
>Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
>Director - Trace R & D Center
>University of Wisconsin-Madison
>The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On 
>Behalf Of Loretta Guarino Reid
>Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 6:34 PM
>To: Lisa Seeman; Chris Ridpath; WCAG
>Subject: Re: Technique Designations
>
>
>Actually, your argument is exactly the reason that the numbered 
>techniques are sufficient, but not necessary. So I don't think there is a
problem.
>
>If you use one of the techniques, your content will meet the SC.
>
>There is no claim that if you don't use one of the techniques, you have 
>not met the SC.  As you point out, people may come up with other 
>approaches that still solve the problem. And baselines that contain 
>different sets of technologies will present different sets of techniques to
draw from.
>
>Loretta
>
>
>On 5/7/06 5:16 PM, "Lisa Seeman" <lisa@ubaccess.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> 1) Sufficient - Are the numbered techniques in the "techniques for 
> >> addressing" section of each SC. If followed your content will meet 
> >> SC. You may have to use more than one "sufficient" tech to meet SC.
> >> If not followed then you've got to use another technique (outside 
> >> the listed techniques and not one of the "common failures") to meet SC.
> >
> >
> > This looks problematic to me. If some has solved the problem, but 
> > has not done it in a way we thought of this would suggest that they 
> > are not good enough (even if it works, right now, with assistive 
> > technology). That is blocking the evolution of accessibility and the 
> > use of  new and better techniques.
> > Further we have only created techniques in "critical " technologies 
> > - so if a form is made accessible using XForms, or a graphic uses 
> > SVG with great grouping and descriptions then according to this they 
> > have failed. Which is a bit crazy ...
> >
> >
> >
Received on Monday, 8 May 2006 13:59:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:46 GMT