RE: Issue with intro to "advisory techniques"

I think that we may need to expand and document detailed definitions (as 
objective as possible) of "sufficient" and "advisory (optional?)"
in the context of meeting SCs, and then, for each SC, state as part of that 
SC Guide documentation, exactly (in as detailed a fashion as possible) how 
and why the successful accomplishment of each "sufficient" technique would 
meet the referenced SC (alone or in combination with other "sufficient" 
techniques), and exactly how and why the successful accomplishment of 
"advisory" (optional?) techniques would not be "sufficient" (required?) in 
serving to meet the referenced SC (as defined previously) but would be 
"good" for accessibility of web content.    I believe that publicly 
documenting in detail the rationale supporting our classification of 
techniques in relation to meeting each SC will solidify the credibility of 
our work to the public..

   At 12:38 PM 12/15/2005 -0500, you wrote:

>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-interfacedef>keyboard 
>interface, except where the task requires analog, time-dependent input. 
>(Level 1)
>
>
>
>The only sufficient technique in there is 
><http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20051123/tech-placeholder.htm>Using 
>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&
>
><http://www.eramp.com>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.utexas.edu/research/accessibility>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&
><http://www.eramp.com>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&
><http://www.eramp.com>www.eramp.com
>