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

Re: Terminology

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 22:34:48 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
cc: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0008142222170.18123-100000@tux.w3.org>
I had a look through the checklist for WCAG 1 -
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist - to see how technology specific
the checkpoints were.

There are 16 priority 1 checkpoints.

On my first read, I thought that 6.1 and 12.1 are technology specific. 5.1
and 5.2 are about labelling tables - really special cases of a general
requirement, but not actually technology specific in the same sense. At a
stretch I could see an argument that 1.2 and 9.1 (dealing with image
maps) are technology specific, but I don't buy the argument. Leaving at least
10 of 16 checkpoints, by my reckoning, as technology-independent yet

I thought that as I got into the priority 2 checkpoints it would change
drastically. It changed, but not drastically.

I think that the problem to be solved is about working out what is a special
case, that got elevated to checkpoint or guidelines level because we were
thinking about HTML, and what is a general requirement for
accessibility. Shifting a few of our current checkpoints to techniques for
meeting slightly more generally expressed checkpoints would already give us a
good basis document (the WCAG 2.0 draft doesn't lose functionality from WCAG
1, and we haven't considered any substantive change in our requirements yet.)


On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Jason White wrote:

  What I am arguing is that the meanings have already shifted and that we
  need to make the best of the new situation. Checkpoints used to be (in
  WCAG 1.0) largely, but not entirely technology-specific; the Techniques
  were merely explanations and examples of the checkpoints in many, though
  not all, cases. Recent discourse within the working group has reflected
  the ambiguity by referring to "technology-specific" checkpoints".
  We need to clarify the terminology, either by using "checkpoint" to mean a
  technology-specific requirement, or a general strategy of accessible
  design which, though not at the most abstract level, is stated at a level
  of specificity that allows concrete implementation strategies to follow
  from it.

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 Monday, 14 August 2000 22:34:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:33 UTC