- From: Roberto Castaldo <r.castaldo@iol.it>
- Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:49:45 +0100
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Tom: The techniques should not be normative for a few reasons: * we would require authors to apply only the techniques we happen to have considered and could preclude other viable ways of conforming to WCAG; * we would have to go through a more stringent process to update techniques, dramatically increasing the likelihood that the techniques will fall behind the level of current technology, which is one of the things the technology-agnostic structure of WCAG was designed to avoid; * we would preclude WCAG conformance for any technology for which we have not provided techniques, whether as a result of lack of resources or because the technology is not an open standard. Roberto C: That is an important issue; actually in Italy we're discussing a lot - in the list webaccessibile@itliste.org - about Web standards, W3C, and how to follow raccomandations and guidelines. The point is that some people believe that W3C raccomandations, including WAI project and WCAG, should reflect every aspect of today's Web situation and provide developers with examples of every possible application; of course it's not possible to guess every kind of Web application and give the correct way to develop it. That's why the techniques cannot be normative, I agree with you, Tom. W3C guidelines and techniques cannot suggest all the possible solutions for today's and tomorrows technologies, but can (I'd say must) show the right way to follow for eny kind of Web sites/applications. On the other side, every developer, building any kind of web sites/applications, must find in W3C raccomandations, guidelines and techniques a mentor which is able to show them the goal to achieve, and providing them some good example. Tom: This proposal would require the guidelines to provide a skeleton model of a QA process for technique development. This would likely be drawn from the methods already in use for validating the techniques and techniques documents. This skeleton model would then be used as a basis for QA methodologies used to validate techniques used in conformance claims. Sites claiming WCAG conformance would be expected to be able to prove on demand that their techniques have been tested and determined to meet our inter-rater reliability requirements. This process would not impose any specific additional requirements on the nature of conforming content and we do not propose to require there be a statement on the site indicating they have followed this process. But if the site claims WCAG conformance and that is challenged, documentation of the testing process would need to be provided. Of course, sites that choose simply to use our own techniques could simply refer to documentation we would provide as part of our techniques development process. Roberto C: Well, let's try not to make this process too complicated, and to make everyone understand that we're building it up to give developers much more possibilities to get WCAG conformance. We should be able to present it as an opportunity rather than a bureaucratic constraint. Bye everybody, Roberto Castaldo ----------------------------------- www.Webaccessibile.Org coordinator IWA/HWG Member rcastaldo@webaccessibile.org r.castaldo@iol.it Icq 178709294 -----------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 17 March 2004 12:50:18 UTC