RE: WCAG Next Possible Models

I’m commenting in favor of the “WCAG 2.0 plus extensions by technology or platform” model. I think we’re seeing some instances where experts in a particular technology application – take Health IT or gaming as examples – are approaching accessibility, and see WCAG 2.0 as too global and/or too hard to explain in terms of the HIT domain. The risk is that someone will want to develop separate accessibility guidelines, which might unnecessarily contradict WCAG, or be missing important WCAG guidance. This is in no way intended to deprecate the skills or motivations of others, just to recognize that sometimes all that’s needed is a bit of contextual interpretation.

Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.908.907.2387 v/sms
skype jimtobias

From: White, Jason J []
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 12:51 PM
To: John Foliot <>; WCAG <>;; 'WebAIM Discussion List' <>
Subject: RE: WCAG Next Possible Models

Under option 1 (WCAG 2.0 + normative extensions), another possibility would be to unify and consolidate all of the extensions into a single WCAG 2.0 Extensions document that would proceed through the Recommendation track as a single specification.

WCAG 2.0 does not, for the most part, have guidelines or success criteria for specific disabilities and I would prefer that disability-specific extensions be avoided. The emphasis is instead on universal design – recognizing where possible the measures that benefit multiple communities, while still addressing needs that are unique to people with specific disabilities. I think this emphasis should remain in the preferred extension model.


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.


Received on Friday, 8 April 2016 17:56:58 UTC