W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > May 2017

Re: We have until tomorrow to object - Fwd: RE: Supplementary document for WCAG 2.1

From: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 14:29:43 -0400
Message-Id: <1A6AEFC8-4643-4DB7-8727-BEC896C03AC8@umd.edu>
Cc: Mike Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>, "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>, "Neil.Milliken" <neil.milliken@atos.net>
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
I think this is all getting very confusing. 

I think that we have WCAG 2.1 

if there are supplemental docs — I think that each should focus on ONE aspect -  and not be written anything like WCAG  (or else it will be very confusing and not very useful or used) 

the supplement should NOT be   WCAG without testability.   Because there is no use for that.

The supplements should be GUIDANCE documents on how to address these specific topics.  
They should be written like tutorials  (how to create content for this group or topic)
They should include all of the things that are in WCAG  and everything that doesn’t qualify for WCAG but is really great advice.   And they should not be separated but all integrated into a coherent story.

That is what would be useful and used. 

If the purpose is to just have more requirements that don’t have the testability problem or general applicability problem of WCAG — then it will fails - because you can require what isnt testable or generally applicable.    

I know we all wish there were more generally applicable things that were testable.  But lets not force what doesn’t qualify into as a requirement into one.    It won’t fly and can sink what can be. 


Gregg C Vanderheiden


Received on Wednesday, 24 May 2017 18:30:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:23:59 UTC