- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:06:51 -0500
- To: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
- Cc: Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi Sailesh, > As I read through those references, Thank you for reading them. > I come away thinking that they > seem to support the views I expressed in my last email. > i. The example of HTML5 being extensible ... it is a spec for a > technology, unlike WCAG2. Besides I understand apparently HTML5 has > been written in a manner that permits extensions to be written. > Even when a technology spec changes it can be a change like from ARIA > 1.0 to ARIA 1.1 or HTML4 to HTML5. > And about WAI-ARIA being a separate recommendation in its own right: > Absolutely. But it is a technology spec that does "extend" HTML. Is > that not how one should be interpreting "extensibility"? >From what I have gathered, my take on "extensibility" in WGAC 2.0 is that it is intended to extend WCAG 2.0 in needed areas such as low vision, mobile, and cognitive. But perhaps one of the Chairs can clarify. > ii. In the minutes: > "AWK: we have the post-wcag2 wiki. We need to look at those items to > inform our decisions, as well as the work of the mobile and cognitive > task forces". > I think that is reffering to the scope for a new WCAG2.x. That can > alter normative content of WCAG2 / add new stuff ... something that > may not be accomplished via an extension. The "post-wcag2" wiki page was subsequently transformed into the "Post WCAG 2 Issues Sorted" wiki page. Check the "category" and "What should WCAG do?" columns for Low vision, Cognitive, Mobile in the first table. https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Post_WCAG_2_Issues_Sorted > iii. "In that document, it says, an extension wouldn't impact a > country's law that referenced WCAG 2.0 until the law changed to be > WCAG 2.0 +". > Exactly, there has to be a new WCAG like WCAG2.1 or WCAG3 and the law > needs to reference that. Even today, there may be some state laws for > accessibility that still reference WCAG1. What is to stop a law or any other official document such as an OCR settlement agreement from referencing WCAG 2.0 + Extension X, Y, and Z? > So without specific examples, it is difficult to understand what > extensibility means in the context of WCAG2 and how it can be > implemented or what its impact might be. I think we may be having concrete examples fairly soon with the Mobile Task Force's work. Kindest Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 27 July 2015 19:07:19 UTC