- From: Michael Cooper <michaelc@watchfire.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:56:53 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Yeah - just so people aren't confused, what Gregg said is what I intended to say. The WCAG group should provide a _recommended_ baseline in a non-normative document. But it is only a recommendation, not binding on conformance, and authors can (and sometimes, should) use a different baseline. This is in preference to the other options I can think of that don't work: * Provide a normative baseline - that's what we've been struggling with * Fail to provide a baseline recommendation of any kind - then people will be struggling to implement WCAG "blind" - without adequate information, and baselines will be all over the map. They may be anyway, but at least a recommendation from us should help to consolidate them. Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] > Sent: March 24, 2005 11:40 AM > To: Michael Cooper; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > Subject: RE: Key results and recommendations from Face to Face > > > We can't have a baseline specified in a non-normative doc. > We can have > suggestions for what people would use, and that can be > non-normative since > it is just a suggestion and can be followed or ignored while still > conforming to WCAG. But a baseline that is specified by us > is a normative > item and needs to be in a normative doc. > > Gregg > > -- ------------------------------ > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. > Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. > Director - Trace R & D Center > University of Wisconsin-Madison > > > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf > Of Michael Cooper > Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 9:26 AM > To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > Subject: RE: Key results and recommendations from Face to Face > > Hmm... I echo Jason's concern that this essentially says > "always provide > HTML backups, forever". I would prefer that we take the > approach of having a > non-normative, WCAG-recommended baseline, at a level above > the techniques, > probably in the document currently known as Addenda. This > baseline would be > for World Wide Web use, i.e., public sites with an international or > unspecified audience, and would be the one we strongly > recommend authors use > unless they have specific reasons they can use a higher > baseline. In the > year 2005, this baseline may say what Wendy suggests, provide > fallbacks for > scripts, plugins, images, etc. In the year 2007, we might be > able to change > the recommended baseline and say "scripts and plugin X do not need > fallbacks, but other plugins and images still do". This way, > we can provide > a recommendation that is not normative but we strongly expect > authors to > follow, and is current to the technology of the day. > > I know there are concerns about fractioning of standards if > we do this - > even though sites all conform to WCAG 2, they use different > baselines (or > some use the old recommended one and some use the new > recommended one) - and > we need to talk through that issue. But I think we're going to get > fractioning no matter what we do, and this allows us to make concrete > recommendations while still enabling implementors to make the most > appropriate choice. We do have to trust them to make a smart > choice, but I > don't see a way around that. > > Michael > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wendy Chisholm > > > > 3. If a decision maker *can not* make further assumptions about the > > audience (because the decision maker is publishing to the > whole Web or > > doesn't have control over user tools), then the content is > functional > > when technologies are turned off or not supported *or* an > alternative > > must be provided. > >
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2005 16:57:17 UTC