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

Re: Conformance claims - by success criteria?

From: Graham Oliver <graham_oliver@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 17:12:17 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <20011015161217.42320.qmail@web10001.mail.yahoo.com>
To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
My responses between <GO> and </GO>

> An interesting idea, but too complicated? Also, if
> one hasn't met the
> success criteria, one hasn't satisfied the
> checkpoint/resolved the
> accessibility problem, so there seems to be no value
> in claiming
> partial implementation of a checkpoint. If the
> success criteria have
> been met then the checkpoint is satisfied and the
> access problem which
> it addresses has been overcome; otherwise not.
<GO>Agreed</GO>

<SNIP>
> Perhaps we should start thinking in terms of
> "technology-specific
> success criteria" rather than "technology-specific
> checkpoints".
<GO>Agreed</GO>

<SNIP>
> To illustrate the problem, consider checkpoint 1.1
> of WCAG 2.0.
> 
> <blockquote>
> You will have successfully provided a text
> equivalent for all non-text content
> if:
> 
>    1. all non-text content is explicitly associated
> with a text equivalent
>      (images have alt-text, movies have collated
> text transcripts, animations
>      have descriptions, interactive scripts have a
> functional equivalent such
>      as a form, audio files have a text transcript),
>    2. the text equivalent fulfills the same function
> and conveys the same
>      information as the non-text content. > Note:
> Depending on the purpose and
>      content of the non-text content, a short label
> may be appropriate, or a
>      more thorough explanation may be required,
>    3. where it is not possible to describe the
> non-text content in words or
>      for text to provide the same function as the
> non-text content, a label
>      identifying the content is provided.
> </blockquote>
> 
> Only the first success criterion can be supplemented
> by
> technology-specific requirements that can be
> considered normative. 
<GO>
This is the weakness of labelling a success criterion
normative or non-normative. For that matter I don't
favour distinguishing any part of the document as
normative or non-normative.
The charter is clear that the document itself is
intended to be normative
<quote>
With regard to the WCAG WG's guidelines document, the
Working Group will produce a document with sufficient
technical precision to be used as a normative
reference for Web content accessibility
</quote>
My logic may be weak but it doesn't make sense to me
to have non-normative sections of a normative
document.
</GO>

<SNIP>
Regards
Graham Oliver


=====
'Making on-line information accessible'
Mobile Phone : +64 25 919 724 - New Zealand
Work Phone : +64 9 846 6995 - New Zealand
AIM ID : grahamolivernz

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
Received on Monday, 15 October 2001 12:12:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:16 GMT