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

Issue #10

From: Charles F. Munat <chas@munat.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:46:08 -0700
To: "Web Content Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I like the idea of icons that mirror the modules/sections or the guidelines.
Rather than A-AAA, I suggest that we simply divide 100 by the number of
checkpoints in each section. So if Guideline 1 has 5 checkpoints, then the
levels for that Guideline/section/module would be 0, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100.
This would encourage following as many guidelines as possible and would
clearly show the percentage compliance.

Chas. Munat

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Paul Bohman
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 11:17 AM
> To: Wendy A Chisholm; jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU; Web Content
> Guidelines
> Subject: RE: Agenda
> 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 Thursday, 23 August 2001 18:43:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:38 UTC