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

Below is an exchange with the Government of Canada on the question of
TR. We don't discuss anything about the logistics of link addresses
etc. which Gregg brought up and I think we need to consider carefully
separately. This exchange is just about the question of scrutiny
before publication and authority of the techniques. I think the main
take away is they don't perceive a proposed move to TR as something
that would mess up their existing policies.

====

Government of Canada question: Hi David, So the techniques and
failures would continue to be updated but there potentially could be
less rigour? What would be the difference in the vetting process
between the two scenarios?

=========
David response: I think in practicality it would be the same scrutiny,
they would still be put out for public review, but with the advantage
of being able to fix bugs quicker etc...... we usually don't get many
people commenting during our public calls for review.

=======
Government of Canada: Okay, then I don't think it would be much of an
issue for us, as the Standard on Web Accessibility would require the
techniques to be used and the failures to be avoided regardless of
their official status at the W3C. Being maintained and updater quicker
would be a good thing.
Cheers,

David MacDonald



CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn

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


On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden
<gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:
>
> On May 22, 2015, at 8:55 AM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org> wrote:
>
> So I hope everyone understands that accepting the charter as proposed does
> not force us into a particular decision with our resources. And I hope
> everyone can see the value in building flexibility on that into the charter,
> since we have to close the rechartering process up now, so that we can
> continue the discussion on our publications without undue constraints.
>
>
> Yes that is a good idea.    and yes - I see that building in the flexibility
> does not commit you either way.
>
>
> Gregg
>

Received on Saturday, 23 May 2015 16:30:09 UTC