W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2006

Re: Technique Designations

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com>
Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 16:34:15 -0700
To: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>, Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C083D207.108F9%lguarino@adobe.com>

Actually, your argument is exactly the reason that the numbered techniques
are sufficient, but not necessary. So I don't think there is a problem.

If you use one of the techniques, your content will meet the SC.

There is no claim that if you don't use one of the techniques, you have not
met the SC.  As you point out, people may come up with other approaches that
still solve the problem. And baselines that contain different sets of
technologies will present different sets of techniques to draw from.


On 5/7/06 5:16 PM, "Lisa Seeman" <lisa@ubaccess.com> wrote:

>> 1) Sufficient - Are the numbered techniques in the "techniques for
>> addressing" section of each SC. If followed your content will meet SC. You
>> may have to use more than one "sufficient" tech to meet SC. If not
>> followed then you've got to use another technique (outside the listed
>> techniques and not one of the "common failures") to meet SC.
> This looks problematic to me. If some has solved the problem, but has not
> done it in a way we thought of this would suggest that they are not good
> enough (even if it works, right now, with assistive technology). That is
> blocking the evolution of accessibility and the use of  new and better
> techniques.
> Further we have only created techniques in "critical " technologies - so if
> a form is made accessible using XForms, or a graphic uses SVG with great
> grouping and descriptions then according to this they have failed. Which is
> a bit crazy ... 
Received on Sunday, 7 May 2006 23:34:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:45 UTC