- From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 22:38:13 -0500
- To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
- CC: "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
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 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/understanding-techniques.html> 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 href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/understanding-techniques.html">Understanding Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria</a> has a note that starts out: "Note 1: W3C cautions against requiring..."
It's an important point and we want to make sure people read it. Currently it is in the <a href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/understanding-techniques.html#ut-understanding-techniques-informative-head">Techniques are Informative</a> section. Some think it would be better in the <a href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/understanding-techniques.html#ut-understanding-techniques-sufficient-head">Sufficient Techniques</a> section (right before the heading "Numbered Lists, "AND""). 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 "suffiscient techniques" section. <span style="color:#808080;">{Sylvie}</span></li>
<li style="margin-top: 1em;">I feel that it belongs in the "Techniques are Informative" 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 "There may be other ways ..." 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 "(See also Techniques are Informative above.)" 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 "Sufficient Techniques" section. Can we duplicate the info? I believe it wouldn't hurt to also mention it in the "Techniques are informative" section. But my first choice would be "Sufficient Techniques". <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 "must" and "should" only to clarify guidance within the techniques, not to convey requirements for WCAG</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li style="margin-top: 1em;">From <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2013JulSep/0021.html"> EOWG e-mail</a>:
<ul>
<li> It is ok where it is but should be worded as "It is important to note that ...", instead of just "Note:". 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 "Note". <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 "cautions against" should be marked up in strong. <span style="color:#808080;">{Catherine}</span> </li>
<li> I agree with Andrew that the "Techniques are Informative" section refers to "Sufficient Techniques." <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 "Techniques." 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 "Sufficient Techniques." <span style="color:#808080;">{Alan}</span> </li>
<li> "Alternatively it should be moved up in that section nearer to the beginning and not be called a "Note"." I agree. <span style="color:#808080;">{Kathleen}</span> </li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2013 03:38:30 UTC