W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: Documenting assumptions + an issues list for the Requirements document.

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:20:15 -0400 (EDT)
To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
cc: pjenkins@us.ibm.com, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0006150019280.27579-100000@tux.w3.org>
Yep.

DO {grin()} UNTIL (happy);

Charles

On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:

  What is the common adage about assuming?  when you assume something you 
  make an ASS out of U and ME?  <grin/>
  
  We should try to collect as much evidence as possible before making 
  assumptions.  A "no-brainer" yet something that I don't think we did enough 
  of for WCAG 1.0.  For the next revision I would like to see the group 
  surveying users, collaborating with usability engineers, and testing ideas 
  by working with the Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group to implement 
  them.
  
  Even with this data, we will still be making assumptions about the sampled 
  population, the robustness and correctness of the data collection process, 
  etc..
  
  I learned some interesting lessons from the "User survey: browsers and 
  scripting" that I sent to several lists a couple weeks ago.  I think only 
  the people who understood what scripting was responded.  On one list we 
  discussed how to write the survey in non-technical terms.  I resubmitted it 
  to that list and got several more responses.  I will be tallying the 
  results from the survey over the weekend and it will be interesting to see 
  the responses.  However, to make good assumptions I think I will have to 
  send the "easier to understand" version to get a more realistic sample 
  population.
  
  The lesson was "how to write an easier to answer survey."  I know there are 
  books about this topic and I'm interested to learn more.  I think this type 
  of exercise will be very beneficial over the course of revising the 
  guidelines.  I'll also be anxious to see people with these expertise more 
  involved in the revision process.
  
  Therefore, yes - we have assumptions to document.
  
  I propose adding a 4th bullet to the 2nd requirement (Ensure that the 
  minimal conformance requirements are clear) that would read:
  Document the assumptions that underly the minimum requirements.
  
  thoughts?
  --w
  
  
  At 11:35 PM 6/14/00 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
  >I think there are also undocumented assumptions. For example, it is assumed
  >that anyone can get and use lynx, so the fact that something works in lynx is
  >enough for it ito be available. It is assumed that not everyone has access
  >to a javascript-capable browser. I think it is assumed that people can use
  >forms, but not necessarily tables. These kind of assumptions (what is the
  >minimum technology we are supporting?) are extremely important to the
  >priority of checkpoints (and we made changes at various stages in the
  >process, as our assumptions shifted with the "state of the art".
  >
  >I think that it should be very clearly explicit that we need to document
  >these assumptions.
  >
  >Charles McCN
  >
  >On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
  >
  >[snip]
  >   Are there undocumented assumptions in WCAG 1.0 or are they undocumented
  >   facts?  I think there are undocumented facts, such as "which browsers
  >   support which aspects of the various technologies?"  The answers to this
  >   question are not assumptions.  My sense is that since these are not
  >   documented and there are ambiguities in some of the statements, people 
  > have
  >   made assumptions to fill in the gaps.  I think the goal with 2.0 is to be
  >   less ambiguous to prevent the assumptions.
  >
  >   Note that the current version of the Requirements document is at [2]  [I
  >   just updated the dated link on the WCAG WG home page to point to this
  >   non-dated link.]
  >
  >   As for your question about JavaScript and non-W3C Technologies refer to 
  > the
  >   thread that I started called, "Scripting and links to non-w3c technology
  >   techniques (to do's)" [3]
  >
  >   Thanks,
  >   --wendy
  >
  >   [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag20-requirements-issues.html
  >   [2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag20-requirements
  >   [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2000AprJun/0440.html
  >
  >   --wendy
  >   --
  >   wendy a chisholm
  >   world wide web consortium
  >   web accessibility initiative
  >   madison, wi usa
  >   tel: +1 608 663 6346
  >   /--
  >
  >
  >--
  >Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
  >W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
  >Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
  >Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia
  
  --
  wendy a chisholm
  world wide web consortium
  web accessibility initiative
  madison, wi usa
  tel: +1 608 663 6346
  /--
  

--
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia 
Received on Thursday, 15 June 2000 00:20:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:04 GMT