Re: WCAG extension

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