- From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 00:50:12 +0000
- To: Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Joshue, > We look forward to your thoughts/input - minutes from the meeting are available. [1] I agree with the general consensus from the meeting. I was not present so I wanted to make sure you heard from me. One item that came up in the MATF was that we were thinking about creating guidelines within the scope of the 4 main principles. For example, we might want to create a 2.5 touch gesture guideline similar to 2.1 for keyboard access. We'd want to make sure that these conventions are coordinated between task forces. Best Regards, Jonathan -- Jonathan Avila Chief Accessibility Officer SSB BART Group jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com 703-637-8957 (o) Follow us: Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Blog | Newsletter -----Original Message----- From: Joshue O Connor [mailto:josh@interaccess.ie] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 2:10 AM To: WCAG Subject: WCAG extension 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
Received on Monday, 27 July 2015 00:50:44 UTC