RE: How much room do we have in "describing how to apply" [was Re: examples of sets of documents]

> And... given how long we've been working on these and not reaching
consensus, I think that time may be soon.

 

Perhaps I’ve been around committees too long, but, I actually think we’ve
been moving at a whirlwind pace compared to every other committee I’ve been
on over the last 12 years, and even while being hampered by being a summer
initiative, vacations, etc... 

 

It has been just the last couple of weeks that we’ve had to deal with the
cans we kicked down the road...

 

Just like everyone on the committee, I have lots of paid work that I’d like
to get to, some of which I’ve turned down to do this... but I think this is
way too important to give up so easily...

 

Cheers

David MacDonald

 

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

  "Enabling the Web"

 <http://www.can-adapt.com/> www.Can-Adapt.com

 

From: Peter Korn [mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com] 
Sent: September-13-12 11:38 AM
To: David MacDonald
Cc: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; 'Hoffman, Allen'; 'Loïc Martínez Normand'; 'Gregg
Vanderheiden'; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Subject: How much room do we have in "describing how to apply" [was Re:
examples of sets of documents]

 

David,

Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear.  The constraint is in the limitations
we are placing on ourselves in "describing how to apply".  Based I believe
primarily on statements from Gregg (who is arguably our best authority here,
given that he is a WCAG WG co-chair), we are not to do more than single word
or phrase replacements in our "describing how to apply" work.  That
constraint isn't found in such wording in our charter.  

And I am simply - again - pointing out that we may not manage to find a way
to reach consensus on "describing how to apply" some of the remaining few
SCs WITHOUT doing more than single word or phrase replacements (plus NOTEs,
etc. as we have already been doing).  And therefore, I am suggesting that we
have a discussion with WCAG WG at some point about that topic.  As well as a
discussion, at some point, about the idea of saying for a few SCs "we don't
believe these apply" (in certain situations, etc.).

And... given how long we've been working on these and not reaching
consensus, I think that time may be soon.


Look, there needs to be a point in time where, if we haven't reached
consensus after trying really hard, we stop trying and do something else.
That something else might be "state that we couldn't reach consensus and put
our pencils down and declare ourselves done".  OR it might be that we go
back to WCAG WG and talk about what other options we might have besides
simply stating that we couldn't reach consensus (e.g. the exploring whether
we need to retain the two constraints I outlined in my previous e-mail).  I
MUCH prefer exploring these constraints with WCAG to simply saying "we
couldn't reach consensus" and then stopping.  It might lead to something
more satisfying, and of more use to consumers of our output.


Peter

On 9/13/2012 7:51 AM, David MacDonald wrote:

> In this most thread we've been pushing against the first constraint.  But
several of us have also suggested that we need to question the second
constraint (with WCAG WG).

 

I think our job is to see how the existing WCAG will apply. Our Charter to
which we all agreed says this.

 

The objective of WCAG2ICT Task Force is to develop documentation describing
**how to apply** WCAG 2.0 and its principles, guidelines, and success
criteria to non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (ICT). As
part of this work, the Task Force will also review WCAG 2.0 Conformance
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#conformance>  in the context of how it might
apply to non-web ICT.

 

We’ve discussed this before and I don’t think our role is to reframe the
charter. I think we are making good progress.

 

Cheers

David MacDonald

 

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

  "Enabling the Web"

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> 

 

From: Peter Korn [mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com] 
Sent: September-13-12 10:22 AM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: Hoffman, Allen; Loïc Martínez Normand; Gregg Vanderheiden;
public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Subject: Re: examples of sets of documents

 

Gregg,

We have been laboring under two critical constraints:

1.	That we must find a way to make all SCs apply
2.	That we cannot - in our NON-NORMATIVE document - re-cast the
criteria based on the purpose & the significantly different world of non-web
ICT to make it better apply

In this most thread we've been pushing against the first constraint.  But
several of us have also suggested that we need to question the second
constraint (with WCAG WG).


Peter

On 9/12/2012 10:56 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

 

Allen, Alex, gang,
I do think this is one of a small handful of SCs...

 
 
less than a handful
 
between 4 and 2 at this point 
And, I think these are important and do apply.  We just are having trouble
finding the exact words for them but we are getting there.   I also note
that they are all cognitive ones, and they always are tougher and always get
the short shrift too -  so I hate to dump them because of terminology
issues.  
 
thanks 
 
Gregg
 
 
 

 

-- 
 <http://www.oracle.com> Oracle
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>  
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065 
 <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Green
OracleOracle is committed to developing practices and products that help
protect the environment 

 

-- 
 <http://www.oracle.com> Oracle
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>  
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065 
 <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Green
OracleOracle is committed to developing practices and products that help
protect the environment