W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: Policy on Third Party Techniques

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:48:39 -0800
Message-ID: <824e742c0902131548h7b50e77dqa9c8f2e800723e75@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

That's an interesting suggestion, Tim. What stands in the way of using
our standard procedure? Lack of expertise to evaluate techniques in
different technologies?

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov> wrote:
> I'm worried about having two parallel processes (confusing and management
> issues, and how to measure/demonstrate "equivalence"?).  Why not consider
> one process that would work for any technique no matter who develops it?
> There would be one set of quality and other criteria that the submitter
> would have to satisfy.  Such an approach would promote uniformity and
> consistency..  (Background - in the related realm of testing/test suites, WG
> members develop tests "in-house" but contributions from outside are
> encouraged, there is one set of process/requirements, and one test suite,
> with tests from various contributors all meeting the same requirements..)
>
> Best, Tim Boland NIST
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
> Of Loretta Guarino Reid
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 2:22 PM
> To: WCAG
> Subject: Policy on Third Party Techniques
>
>
> When last we visited this topic, our draft proposal was
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Externally_Submitted_Techni
> ques_Proposal>
> or
> <http://tinyurl.com/cea9zd>
>
> Let's use this as a starting point for our discussion. Is this still
> the policy we want to propose? Do we want to consider any
> modifications?
>
> Loretta
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 13 February 2009 23:49:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:56 GMT