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

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

From: Robert Neff <robneff@home.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 10:41:32 -0400
Message-ID: <004301c01034$e499c380$59b10f18@alex1.va.home.com>
To: "lisa kestenbaum" <lisathek@hotmail.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
wendy, can you pls cross post this to the authoring and user agent groups.

here is my reply. in reference to the first comment on adding a datae
column.  this would be a neat feature, but i ran out of printable and
viewable space.  therefore, the intent of the sheet is to be a one time
check and modified by using another sheet.  of course this could be the
abridged version and someone could have another worksheet for a longer
version taht could be printed by reeduing the size in excel or making a leal
size sheet or 11 x 17 foldout out.

the other comments are great comments too!

thanks and i could see something like this for the other groups.

i have an open question for the companies that make the browsers and user
agents.  do they have any accessiblilty requiremetns matrixs for their
products?  if so i am wondering if they could post these. who can tackle
this one?

i am asking for two reasons, one is this could help us understand their
committment and learn how they incorporate these into the design process.
and two, if we could strive for one requiremetns document that is in an
acceptable format, thsi could be used by all manufactures for compliance.
in effect the guidelines are business rules and we would possibly need this
broken out into design requirements matrix.  can we at least intiate a
dialog or inquiry to the manaufactures to see how they do business?  this
would be an outreach to say hey, why is everyone reinventing the wheel and
all we need to do is work together.

i also think it should be mandatory that all authoring tools should have the
w3c html validator in their tool.  so far only alliare for cold fusion does.
i have suggested this to microdft in dallas.





----- Original Message -----
From: "lisa kestenbaum" <lisathek@hotmail.com>
To: <robneff@home.com>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2000 6:31 AM
Subject: Re: Compliance matrix (Was: Re: Organizing WCAG 2.0)


>
> 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 10:48:23 GMT

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