- From: Steve Lee <steve@opendirective.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 09:06:09 +0100
- To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
- Cc: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, 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>
A thought - should such tutorial extras be made available via Shadi's team? Steve Lee OpenDirective http://opendirective.com On 24 May 2017 at 19:29, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> wrote: > 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. > > > g > > Gregg C Vanderheiden > greggvan@umd.edu > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2017 08:07:15 UTC