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

Re: Compliance matrix (Was: Re: Organizing WCAG 2.0)

From: lisa kestenbaum <lisathek@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 10:31:04 GMT
To: robneff@home.com, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <F144dyDd3OJXsNQptgF000006de@hotmail.com>

nice matrix.

If you want comments then I think a date column should be added, which 
states the date that a compliance factor was ascertained. I would also 
change rating to "required for ratings..." so that you can tell at a glance 
the highest level of rating achieved. You could skip the rating column by 
incorporating it with the action or priority columns. This can be achieved 
by adding a footnote saying "all p1 criteria must be fulfilled to achieve an 
A rating.....". At this point "action, priority and rating conveys the same 
material in a different format. Some of your team may also have disabilities 
(LD etc) and would benefit from a more succinct layout.

Lisa Seema-Kestenbaum (or just L)
From: "Robert Neff" <robneff@home.com>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Compliance matrix (Was: Re: Organizing WCAG 2.0)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 19:21:19 -0400

something like this

http://www.webspots.net/WCAG_Checklist/WCAG_Matrix-rating_sheet.xls


a manufacturer or a web team with a test and quality assurance team will
baseline the requiremtns upon a requirements document.  this can be a
combination of or include business rules and technical implementation  of
those rules and technical requirements.

any time a requirement request for changes or a page or approach is
submitted, the impact will be analyzed as to what the costs and changes in
documentation and testing will require.

if you have an overall matrix for people to review and test against OR even
better a complaince matrix for people to use...it is one less thing they
have to create.

therefore as a user i could use this to check my site for complaince and
havea record on hand as proof.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>
To: "Robert Neff" <robneff@home.com>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 3:18 PM
Subject: Compliance matrix (Was: Re: Organizing WCAG 2.0)


 > 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
 > /--
 >


________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Received on Sunday, 27 August 2000 06:31:36 GMT

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