- From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:56:25 +0200
- To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi Gregg, > There is no problem developing techniques outside of any baseline. We > don't even set a baseline - so all techniques are basically outside of > baseline. Can you explain your concern more? Sure I joined the techniques group for the express reason of building these techniques. However, the group keeps a list of critical technologies that need technique development, and did not have bandwidth or time to review techniques that were not in their baseline technologies ( HTML, CSS or javascript). So the RDF techniques document, (or CCF by WAAC) that works with HTML got tabled until WCAG 2.0 came out. (Or at least that is what I understood.) Hence the catch 22 situation. No requirements without techniques, but the techniques are put off until WCAG 2.0 is released. That I why I suggested postponing the guideline or redoing it as an extension after WCAG 2.0 is released - so we can work on techniques and the guideline together. > > We will of course bring this up at the meeting. But I think you will get > more by looking at ways to add techniques to what we have than to remove > them. > Well maybe, but in my experience we will not get anywhere with suggesting techniques or criteria. When I was first asked to rewrite guideline 3 was in contrast with maybe 50 organizations and reviewed may different research papers and recommendations, And I compiled the most credible and consistent checkpiont. However, they all fell away as techneques were language specific, not widely appropriate, against free speech ect. Many of these issues are solvable with innovation such as use of RDF, but without being allowed that support I was stuck. (Plus I suspected it would not help anyway) > I have not heard of anyone suggesting that cognitive have its own set up > guidelines. Actually, I think we have a group consensus that we would not > allow singling out of disabilities in conformance, levels, etc. This was brought up when we discussed having core guidelines and extended guidelines (Maybe two or three years ago?) Note: I am not suggesting a second set of guidelines just an extension guideline. The guideline is as it currently stands it does not achieve much. Therefore removing it, with supplying and extended checkpoint makes a clear statement that to include this group you need to use the extended checkpoint. That way people who can not include this group can still make accessibility conformance claims but people who really want to include more people have clear direction from us what to do. All the best lisa
Received on Sunday, 15 January 2006 09:57:04 UTC