- From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
- Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:20:17 -0500
- To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 07:38 AM 12/12/2005 -0500, you wrote: > > 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. > >Thinking about this some more, it seems to me that WCAG (1.0 and 2.0) are >very different than the other W3C Technical Recommendations with which I >am familiar. For lack of better terminology, WCAG is along the lines of >usage whereas HTML, XML, CSS, SVG, etc. are all very much detailed >definitions. This leads me to a few questions: > >(1) Does the W3C have guidance as to the format of TR, especially the >"lowest level" parts (the success criteria in the case of WCAG 2.0)? The QA Framework: Specification Guidelines [1] is a possible resource pertinent as an answer to your Question #1. >(2) Are there other W3C TR that are along the lines of useage in a fashion >similar to WCAG? The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines [2] is another W3C specification in development that may be relevant as an answer to your Question #2. Thanks and best wishes Tim Boland NIST [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/ [2]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-ATAG20-20051123/
Received on Monday, 12 December 2005 14:21:40 UTC