W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 1999

Re: Conformance Claims (word-smithing grumbles)

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 17:35:31 -0500
Message-Id: <199903032232.RAA933647@relay.interim.iamworld.net>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Cc: ehansen@ets.org, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 04:57 PM 3/3/99 -0500, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>Al Gilman wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> This numbering is backwards.  If you use numbers, level 1 of conformance
>> must be the strictest.  The die is cast in the order used for priorities.
>> Don't cross up the reader by reversing your field here.
>> 
>> Sorry I didn't catch this earlier.  Thanks to Eric for making the
>> proposition clear.
>> 
>> Otherwise define an enumeration of adverbs, for example {essentially,
>> substantially, entirely} conformant, for conformance to all { P1 , P1 & P2
>> , P1 & P2 & P3 } checkpoints.
>
>
>We discussed this on the teleconference several times. We
>chose "P1", "P12", and "P123" so that listeners would immediately
>know which sets of checkpoints were satisfied. Numbering them
>alone (e.g., "P3") was confusing because one wouldn't know whether
>that meant P3 alone or P1 + P2 + P3. 
>
>"P123" is the longest because it means you've done the most work.

Programmers will grok this.  The people writing the ratings will be OK.
But the people reading the ratings won't and so the scheme is, well, less
mnemonic than would be best.  The WG can do what the WG decides but
statements that librarians and teachers will tend to grasp instantly rather
than after training would be preferred.

>
>
>> >Conformance Claims
>> >
>> >Claims of conformance must provide the following information.
>> >
>> >1. Content scope: The scope of the content that the claim covers, e.g., a
>> >portion of a page, a single page, or a whole site.
>> >2. Conformance level: Which level (CL-1, CL-2, or CL-3) has been achieved.
>> >3. Guidelines title: E.g., "W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines".
>> >4. Guidelines URL: The URL of the guidelines document, e.g.,
>> ><http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-WAI-PAGEAUTH-19990226>
>> 
>> It must be explained that this is the "this version" URL from the document
>> and not the "latest version" URL.
>
>That's why the wording in the original statement was:
>
>"Identify this document with this URI:

"Identify the document with" is too abstract.  

In this situation we need to say something more consumerized along the
lines of "As part of how you cite the document, give the URL and spell it
exactly as shown here: <http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-WAI-PAGEAUTH-1999%%%%>"
>
>This was to avoid needing to explain the difference between
>the latest version and the specific version. 
>
> - Ian
>
>-- 
>Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) 
>Tel/Fax: (212) 684-1814 
>http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> 
Received on Wednesday, 3 March 1999 17:32:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:59 GMT