RE: [techs] Table Summary Tests (111, 112, 113, 114, 203)

Thanks Roberto. 

I think this is an important point. If the guidelines are out of touch
with what is happening in the software industry, it is not the W3C's
fault. 

However, if the WCAG ignores the software industry, will pointing to the
shortcoming of the AT and authoring tool makers make WCAG any more
useful? 

It is a rhetorical question and I know I will regret it. However, there
is a difference between an effort that attempts to create standards in a
vacuum and one that creates standards based on available best practice.
If we are not thoughtful about collaboration then we exist in the
former. I would offer that WCAG would be best served to exist in the
latter. 

Cheers,
Bob


------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
bob regan | macromedia | 415.832.5305






-----Original Message-----
From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG [mailto:rscano@iwa-italy.org] 
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 8:02 AM
To: Bob Regan; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: Mathew.Mirabella@team.telstra.com
Subject: RE: [techs] Table Summary Tests (111, 112, 113, 114, 203)



-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Regan [mailto:bregan@macromedia.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 4:50 PM
To: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: Mathew.Mirabella@team.telstra.com
Subject: RE: [techs] Table Summary Tests (111, 112, 113, 114, 203)


Has anyone checked with Freedom, sent them an email or asked them to
participate? Is there a coordinated effort to work with the AT
community?
Based on what I know of the group, it is a goal, but one we don't always
meet. 

Roberto Scano:
I think that since 1997 that exist the possibility to partecipate,
anyone
don't permit to Freedom Scientific (or any other AT vendor) to
partecipate.
Remember that there are also mailing lists (public and also this one)
where
they can send proposals/etc.

Bob Regan:
That said, it is not reasonable for the group to simply compile a list
of
changes for Freedom Scientific (or any other AT vendor) and hand it over
when WCAG2 is complete. 

Roberto Scano:
We are talking of wrong/missing application of WCAG 1.0 (1999), and we
are
in 2005.... Also this is a specific AT, and I think we need to focus on
the
general problems: if we start to discuss about Jaws Version xyz,
WindowEye
XYZ, Acme XYZ product we will go out of our charter:

Cite: http://www.w3.org/2004/04/wcag-charter#scope

The WCAG WG's scope of work includes:

* Advance WCAG 2.0 to a W3C Recommendation 
* Develop techniques for implementing the WCAG 2.0 in W3C
Recommendations
(such as XHTML, SMIL, SVG, and MathML) as well as ECMAScript 
* Develop a test suite for WCAG 2.0 in coordination with other WAI
Working
Groups 
* Document implementation testing experience of WCAG 2.0 

So, for example, we cannot develop techniques for elements that are not
inside W3C Reccomendations.

Received on Thursday, 18 August 2005 15:37:39 UTC