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

Compliance matrix (Was: Re: Organizing WCAG 2.0)

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 15:18:22 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000824151634.02522f00@localhost>
To: "Robert Neff" <robneff@home.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Rob,

I'm not sure how this would look or who would fill it out.  Is this to show 
how to satisfy WCAG checkpoints in a specific technology and how well the 
suggested techniques are implemented in a given user agent?

Could you give a concrete example of what a few rows and columns of this 
matrix would look?

Thanks,
--wendy

At 08:42 PM 8/18/00 , Robert Neff wrote:
>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
> >
> >

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--
Received on Thursday, 24 August 2000 15:15:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:06 GMT