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

Re: a serouse issue at hand was: Re: [action] Reasons for not moving SC 3.2.2 up to level 1

From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:56:25 +0200
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <0f1301c619ba$02eac6b0$1d0aa8c0@IBM4CD7E5EACA1>

Hi Gregg,

> There is no problem developing techniques outside of any baseline.   We
> don't even set a baseline - so all techniques are basically outside of
> baseline.   Can you explain your concern more?

I joined the techniques group for the express reason of building these 
techniques. However, the group keeps a list of critical technologies that 
need technique development, and did not have bandwidth or time to review 
techniques  that were not in their baseline technologies ( HTML, CSS or 
javascript). So the RDF techniques document, (or CCF by WAAC) that works 
with HTML got tabled until WCAG 2.0 came out. (Or at least that is what I 
understood.) Hence the catch 22 situation. No requirements without 
techniques, but the techniques are put off until WCAG 2.0 is released. That 
I why I suggested postponing the guideline or redoing it as an extension 
after WCAG 2.0 is released  - so we can work on techniques and the guideline 

> We will of course bring this up at the meeting.  But I think you will get
> more by looking at ways to add techniques to what we have than to remove
> them.
Well maybe, but in my experience we will not get anywhere with suggesting 
techniques or criteria. When I was first asked to rewrite guideline 3 was in 
contrast with maybe 50 organizations and reviewed may different research 
papers and recommendations, And I compiled the most  credible and consistent 
checkpiont. However, they all fell away as techneques were language 
specific, not widely appropriate, against free speech ect. Many of these 
issues are solvable with innovation such as use of RDF, but without being 
allowed that support I was stuck. (Plus I suspected it would not help 

> I have not heard of anyone suggesting that cognitive have its own set up
> guidelines.  Actually, I think we have a group consensus that we would not
> allow singling out of disabilities in conformance, levels, etc.

This was brought up when we discussed having core guidelines and extended 
guidelines (Maybe two or three years ago?)

Note: I am not suggesting a second set of guidelines just an extension 
guideline. The guideline is as it currently stands it does not achieve much. 
Therefore removing it, with supplying and extended checkpoint makes a clear 
statement that to include this group you need to use the extended 
checkpoint.  That way people who can  not include this group can still make 
accessibility conformance claims but people who really want to include more 
people have clear direction from us what to do.

All the best
Received on Sunday, 15 January 2006 09:57:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:58 UTC