W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: Criterion

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 17:49:51 +1000
Message-ID: <15212.64159.566102.85353@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "GLWAI Guidelines WG (GL - WAI Guidelines WG)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I would argue that, while the success criteria for a checkpoint must,
taken as a whole, be both necessary and sufficient to satisfy it,
individual criteria can be offered as alternatives (so long as this is
clearly indicated).

I would argue that effort should be devoted to refining, expanding and
improving success criteria to ensure that they genuinely encapsulate
the necessary and sufficient conditions, instead of hastily dropping
them when an initial analysis indicates that they are inadequate. That
is, we should endeavour to improve the criteria and only drop them in
those cases where it is clear that only examples can meaningfully be
given and that "success criteria", stricto sensu, are unattainable. I
am sure this is the aim of Gregg's investigation of this point.

There are various forms which success criteria can take, for example:

You will have satisfied this checkpoint if you have done a, or b, or
c, or ...

You will have successfully satisfied the checkpoint if you have done
either a and b, or c.

and so forth.
Received on Sunday, 5 August 2001 03:50:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:11 GMT