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: Eric Eggert <ee@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 13:08:50 +0200
To: "David MacDonald" <david100@sympatico.ca>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <33C0AF49-0779-4213-ADFA-034109159576@w3.org>
One comment, inline…

On 23 May 2015, at 18:29, David MacDonald wrote:

> 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.

I think this shows the common misconception: The status of techniques 
and failures won’t change (at least that is my understanding): They 
are non-normative information, that are published as “Working Draft 
Notes”, which means they are under /TR/. After the change, they would 
be published somewhere else (non-/TR/) but still be non-normative.

My take away is that people think everything in /TR/ has some kind of 
non-informative status, which is not the case. In that light, the move 
of the individual techniques could clarify this common misunderstanding.


> 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


Eric Eggert
Web Accessibility Specialist
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) at Wold Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Monday, 25 May 2015 11:09:01 UTC

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