Re: WCAG extension

Hi Wayne and all,

Yes, I think your example is a senario of how extensions could work.

As Jonathan said the idea of that particular principle is that
extensions won't invalidate existing core WCAG 2.0 success criterion
[1].

For instance the Mobile Task Force is working on success criteria for
touch accessibility. Detlev has proposed making all functionality
available via touch [2]. That proposed SC regarding touch does not
countermand or rescind core WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements for
keyboard accessibility. As John F. said the idea is that extensions
won't step back from existing WCAG SC, but rather augment it [3].

Another word that could possibly work for that principle could be "rescind":

"Extensions MUST NOT rescind WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements and
success criterion."

Or "countermand", which John F and I were leaning toward:

"Extensions MUST NOT countermand WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements and
success criterion."

Thoughts? Can anyone not live with either of those? Preferences?

Other ideas on how to improve the Extension Principles?
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2_Extension_Principles

As John observed, the document adopts RFC 2119 language (MUST, SHOULD,
MAY, etc)[4] in setting the definitions and parameters of the
principles.

All comments welcome and appreciated.

Best Regards,
Laura
[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2015JulSep/0098.html
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobile-a11y-tf/2015Jul/0030.html
[3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2015JulSep/0100.html
[4] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt


On 7/23/15, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote:
> To me the meaning is more important than the word used. I interpret this
> concept as meaning:
>
> Content C that satisfies WCAG 2.0 at level A will still satisfy all the
> WCAG 2.0 level A criteria in WCAG 2.0 + extension. However there may exist
> a level A success criterion X  in WCAG 2.0 + extension such that content C
> does not satisfy the new success criterion X. In this case our content C
> still satisfies WCAG 2.0 at level A, but does not satisfy WCAG 2.0 +
> extension at level A.
>
> This type of extension would be extremely practical.  It would take W3C a
> reasonable time to approve extension; it would keep the industry conformant
> during the transitions, and would give plenty of time before legal changes
> meet harmonization goals. WCAG 2.0 could be extended and give plenty of
> time before industry needed to comply.
>
>
>
> Wayne
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Laura Carlson
> <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> Great to hear from you.
>>
>> Yes, I think we are in agreement of what we want to say for that
>> principle. It is just getting the right word. I am leaning toward the
>> word "countermand" too.
>>
>> Kindest Regards,
>> Laura
>>
>> On 7/23/15, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > First, Laura, I think this approach is a great idea (adopting RFC 2119
>> MUST,
>> > SHOULD, MAY) in setting the definitions and parameters of the
>> > extensions
>> > work, so a hearty +1 for that.
>> >
>> > Re: cancel/over-ride/countermand - currently I would lean towards
>> > countermand, however there may be other phrases/terms that might also
>> fit. I
>> > think however that there is a general agreement of the principle that
>> > we
>> are
>> > trying to name, in that extensions will not step back from existing
>> Success
>> > Criteria, but rather augment or 'improve' existing SC.
>> >
>> > Is this what we are saying?
>> >
>> > JF
>> >
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com]
>> >> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 10:12 AM
>> >> To: Jonathan Avila; Mike Elledge; Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL; Joshue O
>> >> Connor;
>> >> WCAG
>> >> Subject: Re: WCAG extension
>> >>
>> >> Hi Jonathan Mike, Katie, Joshue and all,
>> >>
>> >> We can think about improving concepts and verbiage.
>> >>
>> >> And if you want to work on it via the Wiki I put up a page at:
>> >> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2_Extension_Principles
>> >>
>> >> Edit at will.
>> >>
>> >> Kindest Regards,
>> >> Laura
>> >>
>> >> On 7/23/15, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Ø  A better word for "override" may be "cancel". So that one could
>> >> >> read, "Extensions MUST NOT cancel WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements
>> >> >> and success criterion."
>> >> >
>> >> > I agree Laura – override doesn’t feel right because you can override
>> >> > something but still require the criteria.  For example, a function
>> >> > override in programming may extend the functionality without taking
>> >> > away any functionality.  So overrides are fine in our case as long
>> >> > as
>> >> > they invalidate any part of the criteria.
>> >> >
>> >> > Jonathan
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Jonathan Avila
>> >> > Chief Accessibility Officer
>> >> > SSB BART Group
>> >> > jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
>> >> > Phone 703.637.8957
>> >> > Follow us: Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/#!/ssbbartgroup> |
>> >> > Twitter<http://twitter.com/#!/SSBBARTGroup> |
>> >> > LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> |
>> >> > Blog<http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog> |
>> >> > Newsletter<http://eepurl.com/O5DP>
>> >> >
>> >> > From: Mike Elledge [mailto:melledge@yahoo.com]
>> >> > Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 12:23 PM
>> >> > To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL; 'Laura Carlson'; 'Joshue O Connor';
>> >> > 'WCAG'
>> >> > Subject: Re: WCAG extension
>> >> >
>> >> > I like override, too. This seems like a great way to frame it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Mike
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thursday, July 23, 2015 12:10 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
>> >> > <ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I am not sure cancel is the right term. Override seems more
>> >> > appropriate to me.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > * katie *
>> >> >
>> >> > Katie Haritos-Shea
>> >> > Senior Accessibility SME (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
>> >> >
>> >> > Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> |
>> >> > Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545
>> >> >
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: Laura Carlson
>> >> > [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com<mailto:
>> laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com
>> >> > >]
>> >> > Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 12:05 PM
>> >> > To: Joshue O Connor; WCAG
>> >> > Subject: Re: WCAG extension
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi again,
>> >> >
>> >> > On 7/23/15, Laura Carlson
>> >> > <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com<mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Extensions MUST NOT override WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements and
>> >> >> success criterion. (Principle to answer question 2)
>> >> >
>> >> > A better word for "override" may be "cancel". So that one could
>> >> > read,
>> >> > "Extensions MUST NOT cancel WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements and
>> >> > success criterion."
>> >> >
>> >> > Kindest Regards,
>> >> > Laura
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Laura L. Carlson
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Laura L. Carlson
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Laura L. Carlson
>>
>>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Monday, 27 July 2015 11:34:16 UTC