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

Checkpoint views

From: Charles F. Munat <chas@munat.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:00:11 -0700
To: "WAI Guidelines WG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <LHEGJAOEDCOFFBGFAPKBAEDLCJAA.chas@munat.com>
If we organized our checkpoints into a database, we could provide multiple
views of them. Here are some examples:

1. The current presentation | interaction | comprehension | technology view.

2. An access | navigation | comprehension view.

3. A content | structure | presentation view.

4. A view organized by difficulty: difficult -> easy.

5. A view organized by affected group: visual | aural | cognitive | motor |
etc.

6. A view organized by priorities: P1 | P2 | P3

7. By sequence: first -> last (assuming some build upon others)

8. By skill necessary to conform: textual | musical | visual art | etc.

9. By relationship to WCAG 1.0 guidelines.

And so on. Maybe users could make up their own.

We could, if W3C insists, make one of these the "normative" (default) view.
As Gregg points out, it would have to include all checkpoints in some sort
of linear fashion.

Frankly, I'm leaning toward the idea that the guidelines are different from
other specifications and that perhaps one of the problems with WCAG 1.0 is
that it is a bit too specification-like. For one thing, I think that making
the guidelines too much like regulations leads people to think about them in
regulatory terms (including the government). I'm not sure that that worked
so well. Section 508 might have been better if they'd started from scratch.

I guess we'd have to change the WG charter if we wanted to drop the
normative view entirely. Still, I'm open to anything. I want effective
guidelines. If our charter has become a straightjacket, I'd rather modify it
than produce mediocre guidelines.

Chas. Munat
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2001 18:57:52 GMT

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