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: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 18:14:52 -0500
Cc: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Eric Eggert <ee@w3.org>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9EB520FC-D9DA-433C-BC61-21A23B3C767D@raisingthefloor.org>
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Usually we kept the ‘unvetted’ working draft in public space on the working group pages 
— and then moved it to TR space when it was vetted, the comments cleared, and ready to “publish”.   
 Thus both versions were always available but it was clear which one was official.    We could publish as often as we wished but we didn’t get around to it as often as we should maybe. (my bad)  

Not sure what the plan is from here — but I agree external review (even though it is just note) is important — and in connection with some other things I’m doing - I have been hearing that from others as something that sets the WCAG WG work apart. 

If only people knew and appreciated how much work all this is for the WG.   

+1 for those that serve on it 

gregg

----------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden
gregg@raisingthefloor.org




> On May 29, 2015, at 2:13 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:
> 
> I’ll +1 David here, with an emphasis on “…the working group's failures and techniques which have been vetted in public.”  …with the additional point of underscoring the words “Vetted” and “Public”. There needs to be a clear indication that any given technique has been vetted and “approved” or “finalized” (as opposed to a work-in-progress). This is critical when tracking conformance/accountability.
>  
> Cheers!
> 
> JF
>   <>
> From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca] 
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 11:53 AM
> To: Eric Eggert
> Cc: WCAG
> Subject: Re: Recommendation to move WCAG Techniques out of TR, concerned about Failure Techniques loosing authority
>  
> 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
>  
> 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>
>  
> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Eric Eggert <ee@w3.org <mailto: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 <tel:613.235.4902>
>>> 
>>> LinkedIn
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden
>>> <gregg@raisingthefloor.org <mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On May 22, 2015, at 8:55 AM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org <mailto: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 23:15:26 UTC

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