W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2018

Re: Abstract update - new content terms

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 08:24:55 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOavpvcPYmwd-afogXVDe=3cTZXZzo622EcPoGuQ9cJqtGOs0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: "Newton, Brooks (Legal)" <Brooks.Newton@thomsonreuters.com>, "Dirks, Kim (Legal)" <kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com>, WCAG List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi Alastair and all,

Your latest text is:

"The publication of WCAG 2.1 does not deprecate or supersede WCAG 2.0.
While WCAG 2.0 remains a W3C Recommendation, the W3C advises the use
of WCAG 2.1 to maximize future applicability of  accessibility
efforts. The W3C also advises that new or updated Web accessibility
policies reference WCAG 2.1."

I could live with that but suggest removing the word "future" as 2.1
will "maximize the applicability of accessibility efforts" for current
and legacy content too.

In addition, the second sentence is difficult to read. I suggest
simplifying "maximize applicability of accessibility efforts". Perhaps
something such as the following would work?

"The publication of WCAG 2.1 does not deprecate or supersede WCAG 2.0.
While WCAG 2.0 remains a W3C Recommendation, W3C advises the use of
WCAG 2.1 to improve accessibility. The W3C also advises that new or
updated Web accessibility policies reference WCAG 2.1."

I strongly disagree with removing the last sentence. We are "advising"
not "mandating". As you said, the new standard should move people
forward to improve accessibility. The current sentence states it
clearly.

Kindest Regards,
Laura

On Wed, May 23, 2018, 5:42 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi Kim, Brooks,

> I think the intent is to say something like: If you are going to refer to
> *a* WCAG in a *new* policy, then please use the latest one.

> It could not determine an accessibility policy, which is a much wider
> question. However, if a policy uses a ‘measuring stick’ (thus the term
> “reference”), then use the most recent one.

> It would seem odd to me if the standard does not in some way nudge people
> to use the latest one.

> Is there another way we could say that?

> Kind regards,

> -Alastair

--
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2018 13:25:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:26 UTC