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: Sat, 30 May 2015 08:09:03 +0200
To: "David MacDonald" <david100@sympatico.ca>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8D8A0531-D3BC-4C36-985C-A54B708D096D@w3.org>
Hi David,

On 29 May 2015, at 20:52, David MacDonald wrote:

> 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.

Just for the record, I haven’t mentioned “more official” and 
“less official” documents. The misconception that I have encountered 
several times is that people think everything in /TR/ space is 
normative. (We have seen techniques taken up by lawmakers as a result of 
that, despite the more volatile nature of the techniques.)

> 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.

And that, to my understanding, won’t change at all.

Cheers,
Eric

>
> 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)
>>
>>
>>
>>




--

Eric Eggert
Web Accessibility Specialist
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) at Wold Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Saturday, 30 May 2015 06:09:13 UTC

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