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

RE: Agenda

From: Paul Bohman <paulb@cpd2.usu.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:17:26 -0600
To: "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>, <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>, "Web Content Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ACELLOFHCOOMPAEFBDDIOEFCCDAA.paulb@cpd2.usu.edu>
Thanks, Wendy, for putting together the list of open issues. It is very
helpful.

I'm going to send a few emails today to address the open issues to which my
name is attached, mailing each one separately, for better archiving
purposes.

Issue #10, part 1:

<quote>
23 April 2001 - Paul Bohman proposed disability conformance ratings and in a
draft of the intro he published on 10 May 2001...
</quote>

My original idea can be found at http://www.webaim.org/wcag/logo. I would
recommend that those that are interested in the idea of modularization of
the guidelines take a quick look at the graphic that I created. I no longer
think that it is the best idea to break down conformance by disability type,
but I still think that a modularized conformance model is the best overall.
** So I would like to DROP the open issue as it was before and PROPOSE a
modification of my original intent: Develop a conformance scheme that is NOT
gauged along a single continuum (e.g. I don't want the page to either be
"pass" or "fail", nor do I want single-A, double-A or triple-A along a
single continuum). Instead, I propose that we continue with the discussion
about modularization, and once we have decided how many modules to include
(current discussions suggest either 3 or 4), then create a conformance
scheme that mirrors this modularization. This means that we could have a
page that passes one of the modularized criteria perfectly, but not the
others, and the page's author would be able to declare it as such.


Issue #10, part 2:

<quote>
he includes Technology specificity and Disability type specificity axes of
conformance.
</quote>

Although I originally included these ideas in the introduction, I am not of
the opinion that they should be included there anymore. The idea of
"technology type specificity" will be addressed in the techniques documents.
The idea of "disability type specificity" can be included in the server-side
techniques document, or referenced from it. My original idea was to have an
in-depth techniques document that outlined the needs of as many disability
types as possible, so that developers who wanted to create multiple output
formats (optimized for certain populations) could do so with the expert
advice of W3C members. I still like the idea, but, like I said, it should be
separate from the introduction. ** So I'd like to DROP the original ideas
that I proposed, and I PROPOSE that we include discussion of disability-type
specificity in the server side techniques document. The discussion within
the server-side techniques document should be of a general nature, and I
PROPOSE that we create a separate, more detailed Disability-Type Specificity
techniques document with more detailed information.


Paul Bohman
Technology Coordinator
WebAIM (Web Accessibility in Mind)
www.webaim.org
Utah State University
www.usu.edu
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2001 14:17:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:12 GMT