RE: Proposal to get out of the techniques business on WCAG.NEXT



From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]

I do believe that the techniques and understanding documents are vital and need to be available and updated, so I think that we are all in agreement there.

I do also think that this work could happen outside of the WCAG group, perhaps by EO.  I’m sure that EO would be in agreement that they would need more resources (read: people willing to do the work) to deliver on this.  I believe that the same is true for WCAG.  At some point we will be handling final details on extensions or other normative updates, and perhaps even a major update some day, and the current focus on techniques will need to take a back seat.  I’m not flying to Portugal for TPAC so we can debate whether icon text is covered by WCAG 2.0 techniques or not…

I think EO would be the wrong group to work on techniques. There is an advantage in having the development carried out by people who are most active in, and familiar with, WCAG 2.0 and its application. These people are in the WCAG working group.

I agree, however, that more resources will be required as normative changes to WCAG enter into focus. Perhaps it’s time for a recruitment effort.

In short, this is worth thinking about, not so we can stop doing techniques, but in terms of overall WAI deliverable planning and resourcing.

Agreed, except for the idea of doing the techniques outside of the WCAG working group, which I don’t regard as advantageous.


________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________

Received on Monday, 28 March 2016 14:42:08 UTC