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

Re: Issue #10

From: Matt May <mcmay@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20010823231221.92371.qmail@web11307.mail.yahoo.com>
To: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
--- "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com> wrote:
> 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.

The problem I see with equal values for each checkpoint is the potential for
people looking to score points (literally) by claiming compliance to irrelevant
checkpoints. Others may take on easier, lower-priority checkpoints as a
substitute for more important ones ("well, I can put alt tags on all my
content, or I could just mark all my <html> tags with 'lang="en"' and score
another 20..."). I like the idea of a baseline such as level A compliance,
below which no compliance claim can be made, which at least eliminates basic
technical obstacles to access.

I can imagine things like weighted scores, with higher scores for
higher-priority items, but then I think: if the upcoming prioritization process
is giving people heartburn, the idea of coming to consensus on something that
complex is the five-alarm chili/five-star Thai of compliance schemes. <grin/>

-
m

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2001 19:12:21 GMT

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