- From: Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it>
- Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:01:35 +0100
- To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- CC: 'Guide Lines list' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I fully agree. I can't fully understand the sense of previous discussion. My original point was that it seemed inappropriate to quote a EU resolution to force us to change some concept in our guidelines. The rest of the discussion is barely making sense, but maybe it's just me. If there is a proposal on rewording something about 4.1 success criteria, I may have missed it. M- Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: >A few comments on this topic. These are just my impressions from all that >has been said on this topic over time. > >1) we do know that some will use our guidelines in regulatory ways. > >2) many organizations/companies (even those that don't appreciate >regulations) are hoping that WCAG 2.0 would be used by those who will make >regulations so that there will be harmony > >3) we are not charged with writing those regulations or with deciding scope >etc. > >4) to ignore the fact that others will use it that way is not logical > >5) if 2 is true, making it hard to translate into regulatory language any >more than we have to is also not logical. > >So I think we are in a situation where we must >- focus on writing a good technical guideline standard (called a >recommendation in W3C parlance). >- wording it in a form most appropriate to this task >- but keeping in mind that others may be using it for guidance for >regulatory activity and we don't want to write it in a way that makes it >hard for them to do that well. > > > >Gregg > > -- ------------------------------ >Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. >Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. >Director - Trace R & D Center >University of Wisconsin-Madison > > > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 5 December 2005 18:48:41 UTC