W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > August 2013

Re: Understanding Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria - Note about requiring techniques ( LC-2808)

From: <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 18:40:45 +0000
Message-Id: <E1VBqrF-0000ug-CT@jessica.w3.org>
To: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
 Dear Shawn Henry ,

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group has reviewed the
comments you sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the
Understanding WCAG 2.0 (Public Review Draft) published on 11 Jul 2013.
Thank you for having taken the time to review the document and to send us

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.

Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
public-comments-wcag20@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 25 August
2013. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific
solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a
consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a
formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director during the
transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation


For the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group,
Michael Cooper
W3C Staff Contact

 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/5209AA25.4010403@w3.org
 2. http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2013/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20130711/


Your comment on :
> Dear WCAG WG,
> EOWG considered the placement of the Note that starts out "Note 1: W3C
> cautions against requiring..." in Understanding Techniques for WCAG
> Success Criteria
> There were conflicting perspectives, and no one felt strongly enough to
> try to convince others in EOWG to come up with a consensus position. We
> therefore submit the perspectives below for your consideration.
> Regards,
> Shawn for EOWG
> <p><a
> Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria</a> has a note that starts out:
> &quot;Note 1: W3C cautions against requiring...&quot;
>     It's an important point and we want to make sure people read it.
> Currently it is in the <a
> are Informative</a> section. Some think it would be better in the <a
> Techniques</a> section (right before the heading &quot;Numbered Lists,
> &quot;AND&quot;&quot;). Thoughts? </p>
> <ul>
>     <li style="margin-top: 1em;">I'm one who thinks it wouod be better
> in the Sufficient Techniques section - they're what we're referring to
> <span style="color:#808080;">{Andrew, 2/Aug}</span></li>
>     <li style="margin-top: 1em;">I agree with Andrew, it would be easier
> to read in the &quot;suffiscient techniques&quot; section. <span
> style="color:#808080;">{Sylvie}</span></li>
>     <li style="margin-top: 1em;">I feel that it belongs in the
> &quot;Techniques are Informative&quot; section because it's
> <strong>broadly about not requiring the Techniques</strong>, rather than
> specifically about the sufficient techniques. (although I'm not set on
> this) <span style="color:#808080;">{Shawn}</span></li>
>     <li style="margin-top: 1em;">I feel that it would sit better under
> the Sufficient Techniques section and most naturally just before the
> para starting &quot;There may be other ways ...&quot; and without being
> marked as a note. <span style="color:#808080;">{Bim, Aug 2}</span></li>
>     <li style="margin-top: 1em;">I agree with Shawn, but it may be
> useful to add a reminder on Sufficient Techniques section.<span
> style="color:#808080;">{Emmanuelle}</span> <br />
>     The Sufficient Techniques section currently has &quot;(See also
> Techniques are Informative above.)&quot; so it generally points to that
> section, though not specifically to that note.</li>
>     <li style="margin-top: 1em;">I also agree that the information would
> be best if it was in the &quot;Sufficient Techniques&quot; section. Can
> we duplicate the info? I believe it wouldn't hurt to also mention it in
> the &quot;Techniques are informative&quot; section. But my first choice
> would be &quot;Sufficient Techniques&quot;. <span
> style="color:#808080;">{dboudreau, Aug4th.}</span></li>
>     <li style="margin-top: 1em;">I feel that for those unitiated into
> the special language of standards it will be a somewhat confusing and
> meaningless sentence. If it is intended for ordinary people it would be
> nice to have an ordinary language version so that they can truly
> understand the balance between normative and informative. Perhaps there
> could be a link to a plain text easy to understand version?<span
> style="color:#808080;">{Suzette 5th August}</span></li>
>     <li style="margin-top: 1em;">I think the Notes break the flow but I
> do think a point made in both sections would carry the message forward. 
> As such, a suggestion follows:<span style="color:#808080;">{Vicki,
> August 9}</span>
>        <p><strong>Reminder: </strong></p>
>        <ul>
>           <li>Sufficient techniques are provided as guidance.  A
> frequent misunderstanding is that they should be used for meeting
> conformance. The only thing that should be required is meeting the WCAG
> 2.0 success criteria and not the techniques which are informative. 
> There can be <a
> href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/wcag2faq.html#techsnot">negative
> consequences of allowing only W3C's published techniques to be used for
> conformance to WCAG 2.0</a>.</li>
>           <li>Techniques for WCAG 2.0 use the words &quot;must&quot; and
> &quot;should&quot; only to clarify guidance within the techniques, not
> to convey requirements for WCAG</li>
>        </ul>
>     </li>
>     <li style="margin-top: 1em;">From <a
> EOWG e-mail</a>:
>        <ul>
>           <li> It is ok where it is but should be worded as &quot;It is
> important to note that ...&quot;, instead of just &quot;Note:&quot;.
> Notes like those are generally considered supplementary  / advisory info
> and can be missed easily. Alternatively it should be moved up in that
> section nearer to the beginning and not be called a &quot;Note&quot;.
> <span style="color:#808080;">{Sailesh}</span> </li>
>           <li> I agree with Sailesh in that it could stay where it is
> but needs to stand out more. If it is moved to the sufficient techniques
> section, it should still be made to stand out. I think the idea that W3C
> cautions against something is a pretty strong statement and it is
> important that it not be missed. Perhaps that sentence or the words
> &quot;cautions against&quot; should be marked up in strong. <span
> style="color:#808080;">{Catherine}</span> </li>
>           <li> I agree with Andrew that the &quot;Techniques are
> Informative&quot; section refers to &quot;Sufficient Techniques.&quot;
> <br/>
>              Advisory Techniques and Failures are by nature not
> required. I assume that using a separate section is to emphasize the
> notes, but on first reading I found the section heading a little
> confusing, especially as it's followed by so many other headings, all
> with the word &quot;Techniques.&quot; It rather upsets the flow of ideas
> to have a disclaimer as the first section. <br />
>           I think it would be more coherent to make it a subsection of
> &quot;Sufficient Techniques.&quot; <span
> style="color:#808080;">{Alan}</span> </li>
>           <li> &quot;Alternatively it should be moved up in that section
> nearer to the beginning and not be called a &quot;Note&quot;.&quot;  I
> agree. <span style="color:#808080;">{Kathleen}</span> </li>
>        </ul>
>     </li>
> </ul>

Working Group Resolution (LC-2808):
Thank you to the EO committee for discussing it. Because there is no
consensus in the EO we have considered each comment on its own merit. The
section has a heading "Techniques are Informative, and its placement is
prominent. The note is primarily for policy makers, and law makers rather
and as such needs to be precise. We feel it is as simple as possible, while
maintaining accuracy. 

"Techniques are informative—that means they are not required. The basis
for determining conformance to WCAG 2.0 is the success criteria from the
WCAG 2.0 standard—not the techniques."

If EO returns with a consensus we would be glad to reconsider, but as such
we think it is the best it can be, without causing the techniques
themselves to be called into question.

Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2013 18:40:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:59 UTC