Re: New R1

Yes, exactly. Anyway, Wendy and I are putting some proposed text together.

I realise I should have proposed an alternative in the first place rather
than just giving my personal yay or nay opinion - sorry about that.

Chaals

On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Lisa Seeman wrote:

  I think we must distinguish between usable by, or tailored to.
  In otherwords, policy makes should be able to use our deliverables, but we
  do not have to make it say what they want to hear.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
  To: "jonathan chetwynd" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
  Cc: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; "'Judy
  Brewer'" <jbrewer@w3.org>
  Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 12:59 AM
  Subject: Re: New R1


  > Jonathan's formulation has nothing I don't like in it. "How should policy
  > makers use WCAG?" is more a FAQ than a thing we should solve by setting
  > requirements.
  >
  > I agree the document needs to be clearly written. I agree it should be
  > understandable in summmary by people who don't want to read endless
  technical
  > detail. I just disagree that policy makers are somehow more imortant than
  > teachers or technical developers (nor are they less important).
  >
  > My major concern is that anything which is interreted as "this group must
  > produced something whose content is dictated by what is appropriate for
  > making a policy" will doom us to failure by making us relevant to only one
  > set of policies (no idea which one - I guess the one with the best
  > representation in the working group). It may also cause us to ignore
  > important technical requirements in the mistaken belief that they are an
  > unreasonable burden.
  >
  > Cheers
  >
  > Charles
  >
  > On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, jonathan chetwynd wrote:
  >
  >   I do see your point Charles, however if the group(ie wcag eowg ua...)
  >   spends very significant amounts of time directing their efforts towards
  >   a particular audience, then it must be politic to mention this in
  documents.
  >   One can only have areas of expertise in which one spends time.
  >
  >   I have been asking for time to be devoted to a less literate audience
  >   with little result, on a very regular basis, for a long time.
  >   the group can have no claim to meeting this need as very little time is

  >   spent creating documents, or indeed discussing the authoring of them for
  >   this very large group.
  >
  >
  >   please compare:
  >
  >   WCAG 2.0 deliverables are easier to understand and use than WCAG 1.0.
  >   They are intended for a wider audience.
  >
  >   R1: WCAG 2.0 deliverables should be more understandable and usable by a
  >     wider audience than was anticipated for WCAG 1.0, including policy
  >     makers.   While the WCAG WG does not set policy, harmonization of
  >     accessibility requirements helps drive demand for supporting
  >     implementations in Web applications; therefore it should be easy for
  >     policy makers and individuals responsible for implementing policy  to
  >     understand, cite and/or adopt WCAG 2.0 and related deliverables.
  >
  >   thanks
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > --
  > Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409
  134 136
  > W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI  fax: +33 4 92
  38 78 22
  > Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
  > (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
  France)
  >


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI  fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)

Received on Wednesday, 10 April 2002 15:35:23 UTC