Re: WCAG extension

To me the meaning is more important than the word used. I interpret this
concept as meaning:

Content C that satisfies WCAG 2.0 at level A will still satisfy all the
WCAG 2.0 level A criteria in WCAG 2.0 + extension. However there may exist
a level A success criterion X  in WCAG 2.0 + extension such that content C
does not satisfy the new success criterion X. In this case our content C
still satisfies WCAG 2.0 at level A, but does not satisfy WCAG 2.0 +
extension at level A.

This type of extension would be extremely practical.  It would take W3C a
reasonable time to approve extension; it would keep the industry conformant
during the transitions, and would give plenty of time before legal changes
meet harmonization goals. WCAG 2.0 could be extended and give plenty of
time before industry needed to comply.



Wayne

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> Great to hear from you.
>
> Yes, I think we are in agreement of what we want to say for that
> principle. It is just getting the right word. I am leaning toward the
> word "countermand" too.
>
> Kindest Regards,
> Laura
>
> On 7/23/15, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
>
>