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

Re: Organizing WCAG 2.0

From: Robert Neff <robneff@home.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 20:42:02 -0400
Message-ID: <02ec01c00976$4b12fb60$59b10f18@alex1.va.home.com>
To: "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
has anyone considered a master compliance matrix between the WCAG, User
Agent, Page Authoring and what else are we missing.  this would be used by
groups and manufacturers and would be for requirments management - that is
one could test complaince and record it and eventually post ti to the web.
this would be a rating sheet for all to see!


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 6:15 PM
Subject: Organizing WCAG 2.0


> Hi folks,
>
> While I haven't read all of the WG email on this topic, I would
> like to speak out in favor of a very simple model for
> organizing the WCAG 2.0 documents. The model (which requires no
> additional vocabulary from what we use today in the WAI
> Guidelines) is the following:
>
> 1) A checkpoint is a requirement that is general enough to
> apply to more than one technology. One document contains
> all of these checkpoints. It is called "WCAG 2.0."
> It should be short. You don't claim conformance to this
> document.
>
> 2) For each technology the WG will be addressing (pick HTML),
> create a document entitled "Applying WCAG 2.0 to HTML".
> In that document, each checkpoint explains what is required
> to satisfy it in HTML. People claim conformance to WCAG 2.0
> for HTML with a URI that designates this document. This document
> would mention HTML elements and attributes by name.
>
> 3) Each technology-specific profile of WCAG 2.0 has a
> corresponding techniques module. There will also probably be
> a core techniques module for general information.
>
> 4) It's easy to create a checklist to answer the question
> w"What do I have to do in HTML 4 to conform to WCAG 2.0?". This
> checklist would be a (short) view of "Applying WCAG 2.0 to HTML".
>
> 5) Priorities apply to the technology-specific parts of each
> checkpoint. For example, it is a P1 to provide "alt" for IMG
> (required by HTML 4), it is a P1 to provide a "longdesc" for
> complex images, otherwise "longdesc" for images is a P2, etc.
> There are no priorities on checkpoints in WCAG 2.0, just on
> how to satisfy them in a given technology.
>
> 6) You can organize checkpoints in WCAG 2.0 however you
> wish, though I don't recommend any deeper hierarchy than
> one level, like the current guidelines/checkpoints
> organization in WCAG 1.0. In UAAG 1.0, we do have
> "principles", but they are part of the introductory prose.
>
> Comments welcome,
>
>  - Ian
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
> Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
>
>
Received on Friday, 18 August 2000 20:48:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:05 GMT