- From: David MacDonald <befree@magma.ca>
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:43:30 -0500
- To: "'Gregg Vanderheiden'" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <200512151643.jBFGhVpI028251@mail2.magma.ca>
Hi Gregg Are we sure that the optional techniques are *never* sufficient? I think the proposed wording still throws a negative spin on the optional section. I think I understand what you are getting at, that we don't want people claiming conformance by throwing a couple of optional techniques onto their web site and avoiding the sufficient techniques. But I am concerned that the negative spin (i.e., "not sufficient", and "not required") will turn the optional techniques section into a boneyard. In some cases there are some awesome techniques in there (such as 2.1 "using unique letter combinations in drop down lists") that I would hate to see shelved. And there actually may be rare occasions when an optional technique may be perfectly sufficient to satisfy the SC. I don't think we can rule that out given that the "how to meet." doc is non-normative, and that the important thing is that they meet the SC, not that they are forced to use specific techniques. How about this, as a middle ground? I think the words "optional," "advisory," "additional" and "supplements" below make it clear that they are the optional techniques are *not* intended by the working group to be replacements for the sufficient techniques. <proposed> Optional Techniques (Advisory) for 2.3.1 The following techniques are provided to supplement the sufficient techniques, and may enhance accessibility. Not all of these techniques can be used in all cases. However, some of them may be effective in some situations and for some types of users.</proposed> .Access empowers people .barriers disable them. www.eramp.com _____ From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:05 AM To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: RE: Issue with intro to "advisory techniques" Hi David, RE Validation: Please check the latest draft. A couple meetings ago we moved validation from advisory to sufficient. RE the other comment: I think that you are correct. By saying that optional are not required it raised the question about the others being required. We will have to fix this. Because they are listed just below the Sufficient - we do have to do something to make sure that it is clear they are different than the sufficient techniques. Hmmmm How about <proposed>The following additional techniques are not sufficient for meeting this success criterion but should be considered as additional ways to make content more accessible than specifically required by the success criterion. Not all of these techniques can be used in all cases. However, some of them may be very effective in some situations and for some types of users.</proposed> Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison _____ From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David MacDonald Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 9:02 AM To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org; 'Gregg Vanderheiden' Subject: Issue with intro to "advisory techniques" All of the advisory sections of the "How to meet." doc say: "Although *not required* for conformance, the following additional techniques should be considered." By saying the advisory techniques are "not required," are we not implying that the core techniques are "required"? It seems to imply a requirement of the core techniques. The other problem is that some of the solutions in the advisory sections are very useful and we are almost deterring people with the current language. I think this is particularly evident in the 4.1 advisory section where we find "Validation" as an optional technique. We are almost discouraging people with our current language. Another place it strikes me as deterring an extremely useful technique is in the 2.1 advisory to use unique letter combinations in drop down lists. There actually may be cases where someone can meet the SC by using some of the optional techniques, and we don't want to imply that that is not possible. I think we need to reword this. I recommend the following: <current>Although not required for conformance, the following additional techniques should be considered in order to make content more accessible. Not all techniques can be used or would be effective in all situations.</current> <proposed>The following additional techniques should also be considered as ways to make content more accessible. Not all of these techniques can be used in all cases. However, some of them may be effective in some situations.</proposed> David MacDonald ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- .Access empowers people .barriers disable them. www.eramp.com
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2005 16:44:19 UTC