RE: Special Web Page Proposal for W3C site - discussing proper use of WCAG Techniques

I think this latest version is great!

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [] 
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 4:11 PM
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra
Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden; GLWAI Guidelines WG org; Eval TF
Subject: Re: Special Web Page Proposal for W3C site - discussing proper use
of WCAG Techniques

On Feb 15, 2013, at 2:20 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra <> wrote:

> Hi Gregg,
> Thank you very much for getting this started! I think this will be a
useful resource in many ways, including for reuse in WCAG-EM.
> A couple of initial comments:
> #1. The document does not describe the relationship between techniques and
failures to the WCAG2 Success Criteria. There is some wording in
Understanding WCAG 2.0 that could be at least referenced to put this
resource more in context of the overall WCAG2 framework and resources.

Fixed   See new draft

> #2. The document seems to primarily talk about techniques and failures
document by the WCAG WG and does not talk much about the possibility for
other techniques and failures. This may reinforce the unfortunate myth that
only WCAG WG can document techniques and failures.

> #3. (Minor) the overall tone seems more preventive and negative rather
than inviting. For example, how about something like "The Role of Techniques
and Failures in WCAG 2" rather than "Proper Use of WCAG 2.0 Techniques and
Failures"? I think we need to find the balance between explaining what
techniques and failures are, and cautioning potential misuse due to
misunderstanding of their intended purpose.

Yes it is.  And after reading it over again (and making edits to address
your comments )  it still is a bit - and I think perhaps it should be.
(not negative - but short and focused on clarifying rather than instructing.
"The Role of...."   is all in the Understanding document.    We were asked
for something VERY SHORT and VERY CLEAR  that could be used by people who
misunderstood the Role.    I am concerned that adding more words -- or
turning this into a general discussion -- would defeat what we were asked

That being said - I have tried to add more text to the document to help with
your comments above.   Take a look. 

> Regards,
>  Shadi
> On 15.2.2013 00:56, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>> We have for some time had a problem with people misunderstanding WCAG 2.0
Techniques and Failures.  Many have thought that the Techniques were
required in order to conform to WCAG 2.0.    We have done a number of things
to address this -  but not always with success.
>> A suggestion was made that we create a single page with a simple message
that could be pointed to by people wishing to make proper use of the
Techniques clear.   It was pointed out that such a page would be useful to
many stakeholders and organizations, including the WCAG 2.0 Evaluation
>> Such a page is posted for comments and suggestions at  
>> This page allows you to directly comment on the page.   The page will be
edited dynamically, so you can return to the page to see changes.  You can
also subscribe to the page to have comments and changes sent to you directly
as they happen.  (click on the Comments button and select "notification
>> The options you will find there are
>> Notification settings
>> Don't send me any email notifications (not recommended) Enable email 
>> notifications Notify me of all new comments and replies Notify me of 
>> replies to my comments Notify me of replies to threads that I have 
>> commented on Notify me when I am +mentioned in a comment
>> Gregg
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>> Director Trace R&D Center
>> Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering and Biomedical Engineering 
>> University of Wisconsin-Madison Technical Director - Cloud4all 
>> Project - Co-Director, Raising the Floor - 
>> International - and the Global Public 
>> Inclusive Infrastructure Project -
> --
> Shadi Abou-Zahra - Activity Lead, 
> W3C/WAI International Program Office Evaluation and Repair Tools 
> Working Group (ERT WG) Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6105 - Release Date: 02/15/13

Received on Sunday, 17 February 2013 16:37:37 UTC