

RE: Guidelines or Standards

From: <maurizio@usabile.it>
Date: Fri Nov 25 23:53:27 2005
Message-Id: <200511252137.jAPLbm411230@antivirus.9netweb.it>
To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, "Guide Lines list" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

I can't understand what we're exactly talking now, and I already provided
examples. For me isn't clear why we are discussing about laws, it's not our work.

I can't understand what's not clear or ambiguous in particular with the current
working draft: maybe something is, but I haven't read a critic about it, only a
quotation of EU document: what's the sense? What are we talking about?

I think that if you find 4.1 guideline is not clear (I think it is clear
enough), maybe it's not our fault, but the one who read (even the legislator)
must study the topic, if he doesn't want to misunderstand. If we can we could
simplify the language, not the concepts.

But maybe I simply can't see the point. Sorry, I will eventually read your
response in 8 days. In the meantime, have a good discussion.


> > No, we SHOULD consider that our recommendation may
> > become legal constraints.
> Great!  I agree.
> > Laws should follow WCAG, not the opposite.
> That implies that there is nothing WCAG 2.0 can learn from the laws that
> were informed by WCAG 1.0, and seems to contradict your first statement
> above.
> > The problem arises with technical questions. We can't avoid this.
> Can you provide an example of a more technical success criteria which is
> problematic to reformulate using regulatory language?
> > The risk of misunderstanding when translating a tech 
> > recommendation in law is always high.
> Unnecessarily leaving work to legislators only increases the risk of
> misunderstanding.
> > The error isn't due to  WCAG, is due to bad intentions 
> > when writing laws (to stretch a concept to what it isn't, 
> > without considering its correctness, just to have a 
> > testable tool).
> Could you provide an example of this?
> > But we can't avoid others making error when 
> > making their laws.
> No, but you can significantly lessen potential mistakes by writing using
> regulatory language from the beginning.  Unless this introduces a new
> problem I am not considering?
> > I hope it's clear that our work is to do a good 
> > and correct standard.
> I am confident that is the intention.
> > Not to facilitate legislator at any cost.
> But why not facilitate legislator if there is *no* cost?
> > But avoiding conceptual and factual errors.
> Please provide an example of a Level 1 WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria that is
> incompatible with regulatory language.
Received on Friday, 25 November 2005 23:53:27 GMT
