RE: WCAG extension

Hi All,

First, Laura, I think this approach is a great idea (adopting RFC 2119 MUST, SHOULD, MAY) in setting the definitions and parameters of the extensions work, so a hearty +1 for that.

Re: cancel/over-ride/countermand - currently I would lean towards countermand, however there may be other phrases/terms that might also fit. I think however that there is a general agreement of the principle that we are trying to name, in that extensions will not step back from existing Success Criteria, but rather augment or 'improve' existing SC.

Is this what we are saying?

JF
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 10:12 AM
> To: Jonathan Avila; Mike Elledge; Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL; Joshue O Connor;
> WCAG
> Subject: Re: WCAG extension
> 
> Hi Jonathan Mike, Katie, Joshue and all,
> 
> We can think about improving concepts and verbiage.
> 
> And if you want to work on it via the Wiki I put up a page at:
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2_Extension_Principles
> 
> Edit at will.
> 
> Kindest Regards,
> Laura
> 
> On 7/23/15, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
> >> Ø  A better word for "override" may be "cancel". So that one could
> >> read, "Extensions MUST NOT cancel WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements
> >> and success criterion."
> >
> > I agree Laura – override doesn’t feel right because you can override
> > something but still require the criteria.  For example, a function
> > override in programming may extend the functionality without taking
> > away any functionality.  So overrides are fine in our case as long as
> > they invalidate any part of the criteria.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan Avila
> > Chief Accessibility Officer
> > SSB BART Group
> > jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
> > Phone 703.637.8957
> > Follow us: Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/#!/ssbbartgroup> |
> > Twitter<http://twitter.com/#!/SSBBARTGroup> |
> > LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> |
> > Blog<http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog> |
> > Newsletter<http://eepurl.com/O5DP>
> >
> > From: Mike Elledge [mailto:melledge@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 12:23 PM
> > To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL; 'Laura Carlson'; 'Joshue O Connor'; 'WCAG'
> > Subject: Re: WCAG extension
> >
> > I like override, too. This seems like a great way to frame it.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, July 23, 2015 12:10 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
> > <ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I am not sure cancel is the right term. Override seems more
> > appropriate to me.
> >
> >
> >
> > * katie *
> >
> > Katie Haritos-Shea
> > Senior Accessibility SME (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
> >
> > Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> |
> > Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Laura Carlson
> > [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com<mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com
> > >]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 12:05 PM
> > To: Joshue O Connor; WCAG
> > Subject: Re: WCAG extension
> >
> > Hi again,
> >
> > On 7/23/15, Laura Carlson
> > <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com<mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >> Extensions MUST NOT override WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements and
> >> success criterion. (Principle to answer question 2)
> >
> > A better word for "override" may be "cancel". So that one could read,
> > "Extensions MUST NOT cancel WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements and
> > success criterion."
> >
> > Kindest Regards,
> > Laura
> >
> > --
> > Laura L. Carlson
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Laura L. Carlson

Received on Thursday, 23 July 2015 17:48:09 UTC