W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > October to December 1999

Re: Proposed matrix of which WCAG checkpoints are the responsibility of the authoring tool

From: <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 11:20:27 -0600
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Message-ID: <8525683F.005FA7B4.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com>


CMcCN wrote:
>In reading this, I am more convinced that it is the responsibility of
>individual tool developers to develop their own matrix, and of the working
>group to identify techniques which can be used by developers. Clearly
there
>can be better and worse implementations which satisfy the relevant
>checkpoints, and factors such as the type of tool, the size of the
>application, and others will have an influence on how a particular
developer
>chooses to approach a particular checkpoint.  Some specific examples ...

I agree it is the responsibility of the working group to "identify
techniques which can be used ...".  But, since there clearly can by better
and or worse implementations of these techniques, I believe it is the
responsibility of the working group to clearly identify the "minimum
required" to satisfy the checkpoint.  When I filled in the matrix, I was
thinking of *ALL* types and sizes of tools, and asking if "all types and
sizes" of tools MUST at least implement something to satisfy that
particular checkpoint - or - if it wasn't reasonable for the tool,  and
more if not all, of the responsibility was the author/user for that
particular checkpoint.

I am reviewing Charles' specific examples,  and fully expect us as a
working group to reach consensus.  If we can't reach consensus on each of
the checkpoints, how do we expect that this document will give enough
guidance to the other non-participating tool developer so that they make
the same conclusions as to whether or no they need to implement something
to satisfy the checkpoint?

Of course tool developer will need to decide on additional or different
techniques that they will choose to implement to differentiate their tool
from their competitors.  Most likely they will use their own matrix in
making these decisions.  But, and quoting from Bill:
"WL: I think the WG has a "responsibility" to develop certain matrices,
one of which is that Phill and Charles are dealing with: a connection
amongst checkpoints, priorities, and a sense of who's responsible for
realizing the desired goal and whether that responsibility can be
"automatically" fulfilled.

WHETHER the tool developer needs to implement, not WHICH technique to
implement, can and should be clearly specified in the guidelines.  If we
feel that there are "poor" implementation techniques which would NOT
satisfy the checkpoint, we should also clearly state those are not adequate
to satisfy the checkpoint.

Regards,
Phill Jenkins,
Received on Monday, 6 December 1999 12:25:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:43 UTC