Re: WCAG extension

Hi Josh and all,

In trying to clarify what we are talking about, I wonder if defining
WCAG Extension Principles by incorporating IETF terms [1] may help
focus. For instance would something such as the following be what we
are trying to achieve?

WCAG 2 EXTENSION PRINCIPLES:

Modifications

* Extensions MAY alter WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements for a given
success criterion by increasing normative requirements and success
criterion. The applicable Extensions MUST define any added conformance
terminology. (Principle to answer question 1)

* Extensions MUST NOT alter WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements for a
given success criterion by decreasing normative requirements and
success criterion. (Principle to answer question 1)

Compatibility

* Extensions MUST be backward compatible with Core WCAG 2.0
principles, normative requirements, and success criterion. Core WCAG
is now and will always be stable and the basis for conformance.
(Principle to answer question 2)

* Extensions MUST NOT override WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements and
success criterion. (Principle to answer question 2)

Harmonization

* Extensions SHOULD NOT conflict with other WCAG 2.0 extensions
conformance requirements. (Principle to answer question 3)

* Extensions SHOULD harmonize with other WCAG 2.0 extensions
conformance requirements. (Principle to answer question 3)

Thoughts? Is this off base? Or is it heading in the right direction?
If it is going the right way, any ideas on how to improve it? Changes
in verbiage or concepts?

Thanks.

Kindest Regards,
Laura

[1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

On 7/23/15, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Tues call we discussed WCAG extensions, and I am bringing the topic
> to the list.
> We would like your input on these three main areas that we see are the
> main potential areas of contention:
>
> Some core questions, for WCAG extensions are:
>
> - Can extensions modify WCAG 2.0 SC?
>
> - Must conformance to 'WCAG 2.0 plus extension' be also backwards
> compatible with WCAG without extension?
>
> - Can extensions even conflict with each other?
>
> On Tues call for some general background we had general agreement that:
>
> For question 1:
> There was a general sense on the call of 'yes', an extension may alter
> the conformance requirement for a given SC. For some context, this would
> mean that an extension could increase WCAG conformance requirements but
> not decrease WCAG conformance requirements or difficulty in any way.
>
> For question 2:
> The sense from the group was 'yes'. Core WCAG is now and will always be
> stable and the basis for conformance, the extension may meet some new
> need that doesn't exist in legacy user agents and therefore this
> proposal may be considered to fit into our model of backwards
> compatibility.
>
> For question 3:
> The feeling was we want to reduce the potential for extensions to
> conflict in anyway, and co-ordination and supervision of TF work is
> therefore vital. We will work to ensure that TF facilitators are in tune
> with what each special group is doing, to reduce the potential for
> dissonance.
>
> To be practical however, we won't know until we start development of
> these extensions what the potential for conflict actually is.
>
> We look forward to your thoughts/input - minutes from the meeting are
> available. [1]
>
> Thanks
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/21-wai-wcag-minutes.html

-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Thursday, 23 July 2015 15:44:19 UTC