W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2015

RE: Recommendation to move WCAG Techniques out of TR, concerned about Failure Techniques loosing authority

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 12:50:28 +0000
To: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>, Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
CC: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BY1PR02MB1115FB0CDC6826DAAB4BD3BAC7C20@BY1PR02MB1115.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
And one of the more mechanical reason is that the collection of techniques documents is huge.  Over 500 pages, and there is no need to replicate every one of those pages when only a few are changed.  This actually creates more problems now in that people regularly land on the incorrect version of a technique because of search engines finding an older version, and then they follow links to other older versions of related information within the collection.  

There would be a transition time but in not too long people and search engines would find the individual techniques in the same predictable location.  We would still have the same issue with the top pages of the techniques that would be in TR space, but if that happened then people would get back on track as soon as they followed a link to an individual technique.

AWK

-----Original Message-----
From: Joshue O Connor [mailto:joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 2:22 AM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: David MacDonald; GLWAI Guidelines WG org
Subject: Re: Recommendation to move WCAG Techniques out of TR, concerned about Failure Techniques loosing authority

Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> Techniques are Notes - so they can be amended at any time.  [...]

In practice having them in TR space has often meant overhead/delays etc.

> Can you  explain the logic of moving them more?

It's really about moving to a lighter adaptive model where techs can be updated and kept fresh - so currently this is our thinking on the best way to do this.

Josh

> gregg
>
> ----------------------------------
> Gregg Vanderheiden
> gregg@raisingthefloor.org
>
>
>
>
>> On May 19, 2015, at 1:17 PM, David MacDonald<david100@sympatico.ca>  wrote:
>>
>> There is a discussion in today's meeting about possibly amending technique authoring process to possibly move the Techniques  out of TR space going forward to speed up the cycle.
>>
>> This is in the new Charter proposal.  
>> http://www.w3.org/2015/04/draft-wcag-charter<http://www.w3.org/2015/0
>> 4/draft-wcag-charter>
>>
>> Section 2 Deliverables
>>
>> "Understanding WCAG 2.0<http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/>, to be published as a W3C Working Group Note or as a curated resource of the Working Group. Understanding WCAG 2.0 explains the intent of each Success Criterion and links to known sufficient techniques, both general and technology-specific;"
>>
>> The proposal in the charter allows the group to go either way, so the discussion is not a show stopper for the Charter.
>>
>> However, there is a discussion that the weight and authority of failures might be affected by this, and there may be legal implications in environments that look to the common failures as evidence in court.
>>
>> I would be interested in a fairly wide discussion of this, which includes prior WCAG member and affected jurisdictions... I think there are court cases all over the world that cite a WCAG failure technique violations as an authoritative indication that a web site (page) doesn't meet WCAG requirements.
>>
>> Similarly, there may be some circumstances of web masters are defending their claims that they met WCAG by citing a WCAG technique.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David MacDonald
>>
>> CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
>> Tel:  613.235.4902
>> LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>> www.Can-Adapt.com<http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>>
>>    Adapting the web to all users
>>              Including those with disabilities
>>
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy 
>> policy<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2015 12:51:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:19 UTC