W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2017

RE: Separate WCAG doc for non-SC guidelines

From: <kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 19:23:31 +0000
To: <acampbell@nomensa.com>, <josh@interaccess.ie>
CC: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, <wayneedick@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ED79D68BE083CB43A321BCE2A684021CEDC6B380@EAGE-ERFPMBX27.ERF.thomson.com>
Hi Alastair,

I'm in favor of this too. There must be a distinction made between websites not intended for the general public and those that are. There are many new SCs that I support in theory, but which cannot be instituted in all situations.

Thanks.

Kim

________________________________
From: Alastair Campbell [acampbell@nomensa.com]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 7:03 AM
To: Joshue O Connor
Cc: GLWAI Guidelines WG org; Wayne Dick
Subject: Re: Separate WCAG doc for non-SC guidelines

Hi Josh,

You wrote:
> I like this idea also - however our current conformance model for 2.1 will not be changing. I do think its in need of a reboot for future versions.

I wasn’t suggesting it does, I meant that WCAG 2.1 has the same conformance model, but the new ‘plus’ or ‘best practices’ document does not need to use that conformance model (otherwise there is no point in it being separate).

Perhaps in Sliver that can be more integrated, but I see WCAG 2.x as the baseline content requirements, and this separate doc as “Web Accessibility Best Practices”, or WCAG+ or something else. Not universally applicable, but aimed at general-public facing services like Government and national organisations.
Cheers,

-Alastair


From: Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>
Date: Friday, 7 April 2017 at 12:58
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Separate WCAG doc for non-SC guidelines


Alastair Campbell wrote:

I have to agree with Mike, and what John F & Judy have said: that another doc next to WCAG 2.1 would help alleviate the near-impossible issues with reconciling the user-requirements and criteria-requirements.
This is something that the chairs have been considering also. I think best practice guidance is sorely needed - and something that many around the world have historically looked to W3C for.


It should allow criteria to be more "squishy", saying things like "where appropriate", "based on usability testing".

I like this idea also - however our current conformance model for 2.1 will not be changing. I do think its in need of a reboot for future versions.

Thanks

Josh



--
Joshue O Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie
Received on Monday, 10 April 2017 19:24:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:12 UTC