- From: David MacDonald <befree@magma.ca>
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:38:30 -0500
- To: "'John M Slatin'" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, "'Gregg Vanderheiden'" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <200512151738.jBFHcUH8010366@mail3.magma.ca>
Hi John Are you saying that each technique in the "sufficient" section must *entirely* address all aspects of the SC. Or are you saying that each technique in the sufficient section must satisfy some part of the SC. I think we could get into some muddy waters if we require the each sufficient technique entirely address all aspects of the SC. I think if a technique can be used to successfully address some aspect of a SC then we should not discourage its use. I think that web designers should be able to use the Sufficient Techniques as a painting palette. They can choose, and combine techniques from this palette to meet their needs with respect to the SC. I fear that if we do require that each Technique completely satisfy *all* aspects of a SC, then we are going to have to move a lot of our current sufficient techniques to the optional pile. For instance SC 2.1.1 says: 2.1.1 All <http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-20051123/appendixA.html#functiondef> functionality of the content is operable in a non time-dependent manner through a <http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-20051123/appendixA.html#keybrd-interfac edef> keyboard interface, except where the task requires analog, time-dependent input. (Level 1) The only sufficient technique in there is Using <http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20051123/tech-placeholder .htm> keyboard-controllable event handlers for all functionality. This satisfies one aspect of the SC but not *all* aspects of the SC. So should it be moved to the Optional section because it doesn't fully satisfy the SC? Yet in the advisory section for this GL, the technique "using unique key combinations in drop down lists" is said to be insufficient (under the current wording of the boilerplate). I personally think the technique belongs in the Sufficient section. I was given some very good techniques by some of Canada's top accessibility people, some of whom were on the WCAG 1.0 committee. These techniques ended up in the optional sections for reasons that I question. I didn't think they belonged there but I didn't want to make an issue of it. Later, the new wording of the "boilerplate" seemed to send these "optional" techniques into further oblivion. I would like to go back to these experts with a good explanation, and right now I don't have one. And that is why I think we can at least do something to the wording of the boilerplate that does not discourage people from using them. I don't think this is primarily editorial because of the ramifications of adoption of the advisory techniques may be affected by the wording of the boilerplate. Regards David MacDonald .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 John M Slatin Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:57 AM To: David MacDonald; Gregg Vanderheiden; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: 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 <http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility> /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
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2005 17:39:18 UTC