RE: Proposal to get out of the techniques business on WCAG.NEXT

I agree with Judy that the techniques are useful. They are also an authoritative reference (non-normative, of course, but nonetheless subject to working group review) on the application of WCAG 2.0 to which developers can refer.

If this working group were to get out of the tecniques business, as has been proposed, developers would no longer have a central resource to use in applying the Guidelines. Instead, various resources would spring up of greater or lesser quality, some of which would be diligently kept up to date, while others would not be.

And all of this is being proposed in the name of addressing a perception that this working group produces too much documentation, i.e., that WCAG 2.0 + supporting documents are “too long”.

If the proposal were accepted, the amount of material that developers new to accessibility would need to read would be unlikely to change, but the amount of time they would have to devote to finding it, verifying its quality and ascertaining whether it was up to date would grow.

I firmly support the idea that a single, centrally maintained and up to date set of techniques, maintained by the same community that develops WCAG, should continue to exist.


________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________