- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:46:28 -0500
- To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
- Cc: Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi Jonathan and all, The coordinated piece is under Harmonization section in the proposed principles. They currently read: * "Extensions SHOULD NOT conflict with other WCAG 2.0 extensions conformance requirements." * "Extensions SHOULD harmonize with other WCAG 2.0 extensions conformance requirements." https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2_Extension_Principles#Harmonization Any ideas for improvement? Again, the meaning of the keywords SHOULD NOT and SHOULD are taken from RFC 2119. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt Thanks. Kindest Regards, Laura On 7/26/15, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote: > 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 > > > -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 27 July 2015 11:46:56 UTC