Re: Detail on agenda item #4, scope & dependency sections of WCAG WG charter

William,

First, with regard to why this is coming up on the agenda...

>and I fail to see how resurfacing an issue we already 
>decided against will help

...at the WCAG WG Sept 14 meeting 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2000/09/14-minutes.html
this issue was bounced up to WAI CG; also in trying to wrap up the whole
set of WAI charter renewals it is the primary outstanding issue, since
there was disagreement on the scope and dependency section of the proposed
renewed charter. So as WAI domain leader I am responding to a request to
propose a clarification on this, that works across the context of WAI
activities.

Regarding your other points:

At 11:18 AM 10/26/00 -0700, William Loughborough wrote:
>At 12:58 PM 10/26/00 -0400, Judy Brewer wrote:
>>neither is intended as a easier-to-use version of the guidelines themselves,
>
>"easier to use" and "easier to read" are different.

I think that there are overlaps between these two terms, and was unaware of
separate semantic histories within WCAG WG for the two terms.

>The guidelines themselves should never have as their purpose "ease of 
>reading" but should entirely concern themselves with precision, clarity, etc.
>
>Of course they can be well-written but their very nature/purpose/audience 
>precludes that they be "easy to read by laypersons." That is not their 
>intent nor will it be the outcome of the Working Group's efffort.  Nor 
>should it be.
>
>Wherever any "easier reading" version is created, it should in no wise 
>affect what must be a "technical" document, else it will be too easily 
>misinterpreted/misused/ineffective.

Unless this can be accomplished in some way that does not affect the
technical precision of the document, for instance by layering the document
with an easier-to-understand/use/read front end, or some other strategy
that does not comprimise the technical accuracy.

While I would not argue that this is going to be easy for the WCAG WG to
do, I would definitely argue that it would be much more difficult for some
other group to do, effectively, on the WCAG WG's behalf.

>Decisions as to whether any particular approach to "ease of use" works well 
>is another matter and there is at least one proposal, 
>http://rdf.pair.com/xchecker.htm intended to do that - there can be others 
>including the checklist document, which in its way does the same thing. 
>It's at 
>http://web3.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/checkpoint-list.html and 
>is a typical W3C/WAI looking document.

My understanding is that there have been multiple offers from different
organizations to WCAG WG for assistance on ease-of-use testing of different
document formats, and the WCAG WG can avail itself of some of this advice
as it develops its document. This is one of the reasons the 8.5 dependency
proposals states "help advise with," as I believe EOWG would be only one of
many resources helping to provide guidance on that.

>While there have been numerous forays into making WAI materials  more 
>"accessible" (in the lower-case sense) produced by EO, there have been none 
>by WCAG WG and maybe that's as it should be.
>
>JB:: "...to develop more in-depth training materials as derivative works 
>from the normative guidelines where additional educational resources are 
>required -- but not to develop derivative normative works."
>
>WL: I'm not sure there can be "derivative" works that are simultaneously 
>"normative".

William -- that is my point exactly. EOWG can develop derivative
promotional and instructional materials for WCAG (and ATAG, and UAAG, etc),
but not normative guidelines. WCAG WG, on the other hand, does produce
normative guidelines, and I believe should consider that ease-of-use
considerations are part of the requirements for those normative guidelines.

>JB:: "2.2 Ease-of-use considerations may be accomplished through layering 
>multiple documents in a set, or by integrating understandable language 
>throughout the document, or by some other means, but are a fundamental part 
>of the guidelines document requirements."
>
>WL: If this is a "fundamental" requirement, I believe we are going to be 
>needlessly hobbled in our efforts. In fact, I don't believe it can be done. 
>If it can, some examples should be given of what constitutes something that 
>meets these essentially mutually exclusive goals. You call for a document 
>with "sufficient technical precision...with language accessible to 
>non-technical audiences..." It's easy to say, but unlikely to ever get done.

I grant that it's not an easy task. But it's an essential goal; and I
believe it would be even less realistic to expect another WG to do
something with articulation of WCAG that the WCAG WG cannot itself accomplish.

>The proposed 8.5 contains: "The WCAG WG relies on EOWG to help advise with 
>regard to ease-of-use considerations around WCAG deliverables, particularly 
>for its normative guidelines." This will lengthen the process unacceptably 
>and might even lead to compromises in precision.
>
>"(2) A derivative guidelines document coming from EOWG could not be 
>formally referenced as a W3C Recommendation, yet a referenceable W3C WCAG 
>Recommendation is what is needed;" As to "referenceability" (oh, ye 
>creators of words, unite!) it is hard to imagine why a "derivative 
>guidelines document" coming from either/both groups could be simultaneously 
>normative/usable/readable/referenceable.

This may have been a misunderstanding; my point was that the EOWG cannot
produce a derivative guidelines document; and if WCAG WG produces a
normative guidelines document with a higher ease-of-use standard, then that
isn't a derivative document, but the real thing -- which is the goal.

>In case it's not clear, I think this is not a "good thing". If there is to 
>be a "derivative" and "EOWG has a full plate of other responsibilities" 
>then perhaps some priority realignment's in order but we have to get on 
>with writing 2.0 and I fail to see how resurfacing an issue we already 
>decided against will help.
>
>--
>Love.
>                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
>
-- 
Judy Brewer    jbrewer@w3.org    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) International Program Office
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/LCS Room NE43-355, 200 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA

Received on Thursday, 26 October 2000 15:56:38 UTC