- From: Eric Eggert <ee@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 08:09:03 +0200
- To: "David MacDonald" <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi David, On 29 May 2015, at 20:52, David MacDonald wrote: > Hi Eric > > I don't think it is a misconception that TR documents are more > official > than documents that are put up by a working group outside of TR. Many > TR > documents are not normative, but they still have higher status than > our > wiki's and other working documents which have not yet reached TR. Just for the record, I haven’t mentioned “more official” and “less official” documents. The misconception that I have encountered several times is that people think everything in /TR/ space is normative. (We have seen techniques taken up by lawmakers as a result of that, despite the more volatile nature of the techniques.) > I think > that is what is at issue here, and the Government of Canada is saying > is OK > to be outside of TR as long as they know they are the working group's > failures and techniques which have been vetted in public. And that, to my understanding, won’t change at all. Cheers, Eric > > Cheers, > > David MacDonald > > > > *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* > > Tel: 613.235.4902 > > LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> > > www.Can-Adapt.com > > > > * Adapting the web to all users* > * Including those with disabilities* > > If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy > policy > <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> > > On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Eric Eggert <ee@w3.org> wrote: > >> One comment, inline… >> >> On 23 May 2015, at 18:29, David MacDonald wrote: >> >> Below is an exchange with the Government of Canada on the question of >>> TR. We don't discuss anything about the logistics of link addresses >>> etc. which Gregg brought up and I think we need to consider >>> carefully >>> separately. This exchange is just about the question of scrutiny >>> before publication and authority of the techniques. I think the main >>> take away is they don't perceive a proposed move to TR as something >>> that would mess up their existing policies. >>> >>> ==== >>> >>> Government of Canada question: Hi David, So the techniques and >>> failures would continue to be updated but there potentially could be >>> less rigour? What would be the difference in the vetting process >>> between the two scenarios? >>> >>> ========= >>> David response: I think in practicality it would be the same >>> scrutiny, >>> they would still be put out for public review, but with the >>> advantage >>> of being able to fix bugs quicker etc...... we usually don't get >>> many >>> people commenting during our public calls for review. >>> >>> ======= >>> Government of Canada: Okay, then I don't think it would be much of >>> an >>> issue for us, as the Standard on Web Accessibility would require the >>> techniques to be used and the failures to be avoided regardless of >>> their official status at the W3C. Being maintained and updater >>> quicker >>> would be a good thing. >>> >> >> I think this shows the common misconception: The status of techniques >> and >> failures won’t change (at least that is my understanding): They are >> non-normative information, that are published as “Working Draft >> Notes”, >> which means they are under /TR/. After the change, they would be >> published >> somewhere else (non-/TR/) but still be non-normative. >> >> My take away is that people think everything in /TR/ has some kind of >> non-informative status, which is not the case. In that light, the >> move of >> the individual techniques could clarify this common misunderstanding. >> >> Cheers, >> Eric >> >> Cheers, >>> >>> David MacDonald >>> >>> >>> >>> CanAdapt Solutions Inc. >>> >>> Tel: 613.235.4902 >>> >>> LinkedIn >>> >>> www.Can-Adapt.com >>> >>> >>> >>> Adapting the web to all users >>> >>> Including those with disabilities >>> >>> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy >>> policy >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden >>> <gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On May 22, 2015, at 8:55 AM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> So I hope everyone understands that accepting the charter as >>>> proposed >>>> does >>>> not force us into a particular decision with our resources. And I >>>> hope >>>> everyone can see the value in building flexibility on that into the >>>> charter, >>>> since we have to close the rechartering process up now, so that we >>>> can >>>> continue the discussion on our publications without undue >>>> constraints. >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes that is a good idea. and yes - I see that building in the >>>> flexibility >>>> does not commit you either way. >>>> >>>> >>>> Gregg >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Eric Eggert >> Web Accessibility Specialist >> Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) at Wold Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >> >> >> >> -- Eric Eggert Web Accessibility Specialist Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) at Wold Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Saturday, 30 May 2015 06:09:13 UTC