RE: examples of sets of documents

I think the language of the charter implies a positive obligation on us to
“describe how they apply”... 

 

> What if it doesn’t?

 

I don’t think we should concede “it” doesn’t apply at this point. 

 

I think we have to understand that not all of us, perhaps none of us, are
coming into this investigation with a completely blank, non-partial, and
open mind... some of us have publicly documented desired outcomes, although
I think all of us are willing to be convinced one way or another... it just
means we have to work through various preconceptions on one side or another
... My sense so far is we’ve been somewhat partisan...

I’m not convinced we’ve done due diligence on the hard issues.

 

Cheers

David MacDonald

 

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

  "Enabling the Web"

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

 

 

 

Cheers

David MacDonald

 

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

  "Enabling the Web"

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

 

From: Hoffman, Allen [mailto:Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV] 
Sent: September-13-12 1:03 PM
To: David MacDonald; 'Peter Korn'; 'Gregg Vanderheiden'
Cc: 'Loïc Martínez Normand'; 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Subject: RE: examples of sets of documents

 

You write:

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

 

What if it doesn’t?

How would you all like to recognize this reality when it is the case?

 

Who made the determination that the SC(s) always apply and how was that
determination arrived at?

I’m baffled at this approach to some basic questions.

I question if this assumption is even accurate.

 

 

From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca] 
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:51 AM
To: 'Peter Korn'; 'Gregg Vanderheiden'
Cc: Hoffman, Allen; 'Loïc Martínez Normand'; 'Gregg Vanderheiden';
public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Subject: RE: examples of sets of documents

 

> 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