RE: Issue with intro to "advisory techniques"

There are two issues in this exchange:
 
1. *WOrding* of boilerplate text under Optional (advisory) techniques
heading. This is primarily editorial.
 
2. David's question: <q>Are we sure that the optional techniques are
*never* sufficient?</q>
 
This is substantive. In my personal view, any techniques thta *are*
sufficient to satisfy an SC should be listed *as* sufficient techniques.
The optional (advisory) section should list only those techniques which
don't satisfy the SC when implemented by themselves but are good things
to consider *in addition* to the sufficient techniques.
 
We can incorporate this into reviews of techniques as we get to that
stage.
 
John
 
 

"Good design is accessible design."

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director 
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin 
FAC 248C 
1 University Station G9600 
Austin, TX 78712 
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu 
Web  <http://www.ital.utexas.edu/>
http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of David MacDonald
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 10:44 AM
To: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Issue with intro to "advisory techniques"



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