W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: summary of ATAG WD success criteria evaluation for objectivity

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 16:48:36 -0400
Message-ID: <3E9B1EA4.A8286CAA@utoronto.ca>
To: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
CC: w3c-wai-au@w3.org


Hi Tim,

Some comments on the sections of your document:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2003AprJun/att-0005/wai1.htm

>1. Success criteria are not consistently stated.

Do you mean the words "Ensure", "Allow", "Provide" etc?


>2. Terminology is not consistent or well-defined

I agree, although I think "markup" has been properly separated from
"content" in 2.3.


>3. The kind of accessibility desired is not stated explicitly

While I generally don't think we need to get into a classification of
disabilities, I would agree that 1.1's success criteria need much work.


>4. It is difficult to determine what is required (minimum
>requirements)

How about "must allow ... WHEN APPLICABLE?" instead of "should allow"?
How about changing "easily" and "quickly" to "comparable to the
ease/speed with which similar features in the tool are already
performed"?


>5. It seems like implementation techniques, informational statements,
>and conformance requirements are mixed in together
>...
>PROPOSED SOLUTION: Only use conformance requirement language (or 
>pecify options where applicable) in success criteria language. 

Agreed.


>6. Some of the success criteria seem to be duplicates of one another
>...
>PROPOSED SOLUTION: Ensure that semantics of each success criteria is >unique, and that each sentence in a success criteria statement
>contributes to the meaning of a success criteria statement in a
>consistent fashion, and is necessary for that meaning. 

re: 1.4 - agreed
re: 2.3 - not agreed
re: 1.2,1.3,1.5,1.6 - I think these are related but different enough

I agree with the solution


>7. References to WCAG are nonspecific.

Yes, we are putting together another document which will handle the
reference. This allows the same version of ATAG 2.0 to handle WCAG 1.0,
2.0 and 3.0 (as now seems more likely).

---

The other comments look good. We need to keep all this in mind as we
move forward on success criteria. 

---
Tim Boland wrote:
> 
> Attached is an html document which summarizes comments on evaluating ATAG
> WD success criteria for objectivity (as I was requested to do by Matt
> May).  Comments welcome.
> Best wishes, Tim Boland NIST
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>    wai1.htmName: wai1.htm
>            Type: Hypertext Markup Language (text/html)

-- 
Jan Richards, User Interface Design Specialist
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC), University of Toronto

  Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
  Web:   http://ultrajuan.ic.utoronto.ca/jan/richards.html
  Phone: 416-946-7060
  Fax:   416-971-2896
Received on Monday, 14 April 2003 16:48:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:02 GMT