W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: Updated URL's on Jan's Test Site

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:27:51 -0400
Message-ID: <4124F127.9020707@utoronto.ca>
To: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
CC: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

Tim Boland wrote:

> Good job overall!  I have a few questions on Guidelines link following:
> (1) in section 3.2 guidelines "relative priority checkpoints" part, the 
> text for
> "web content checkpoints" and "authoring interface checkpoints" seems 
> almost identical.
> Can we simplify by combining these clauses, or do we anticipate that 
> there will be significant
> differences between them in the future?

I can possibly see combining the two categories of WCAG relative 
checkpoints (Web content and Web content-based authoring interfaces), 
but I'd like to see the ISO16071 relative category alone.

> (2) Under section 3.3.1 Claimants, point 3 seems to be covered under 
> point 2 (if claimants are responsible for..,
> then they are expected to retract..etc.).   Furthermore, the last part 
> of point 3 ("demonstrated
> that" ..--by others?--), seems to contradict in a sense point 2 
> ("claimants are responsible for").   Should we drop point 3 (not needed)?

I think these are very good points. Perhaps we need to look at the more 
precise language used in UAAG 1.0:

Point 3 is quite tricky. I'd like to see something which asks people to 
refrain from making false claims. But who will ask them to withdraw a 
claim? The AUWG? A third-party reviewer? A competitor?

> (3)  section 3.2 talks about "normative" success criteria.  Are there 
> any other kind at this time?    Are there likely
> to be non-normative success criteria in the future?

I think it was just for emphasis.

Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 18:28:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:49 UTC