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: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 14:52:52 -0400
Message-ID: <BLU437-SMTP587856C066D66680C6474DFEC90@phx.gbl>
To: Eric Eggert <ee@w3.org>
CC: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi Eric

I don't think it is a misconception that TR documents are more official
than documents that are put up by a working group outside of TR. Many  TR
documents are not normative, but they still have higher status than our
wiki's and other working documents which have not yet reached TR. I think
that is what is at issue here, and the Government of Canada is saying is OK
to be outside of TR as long as they know they are the working group's
failures and techniques which have been vetted in public.

Cheers,

David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

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>

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Eric Eggert <ee@w3.org> wrote:

> 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,
> Eric
>
>  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 Friday, 29 May 2015 18:53:23 UTC

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