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

RE: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'

From: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:31:54 -0700
Message-ID: <7164D4266FD7B94CA59D551C7FE6618D0278C11F@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "_W3C-WAI Web Content Access. Guidelines List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Interesting...
Could you elaborate on why you think testability is an academic
criteria?

I'd say it's just the oposite.  If I can test that I've done the thing,
the thing is practical.  If I can't, the thing is academic. 

If the thing is academic, we can have long philosophical discussions
about whether or not I've done it (I'll bring the red wine <grin/>).  On
the other hand, if the thing is practical, each of us can apply the same
test, and agree that I've done it.


Separate point,
I don't anyone has said "difficult to test" is the criteria for not
being included in the minimum set.  I think we've said "impossible to
test".  That's a big difference.  


-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Seeman [mailto:seeman@netvision.net.il] 
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 8:34 AM
To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au; _W3C-WAI Web Content Access.
Guidelines List
Subject: Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'


Again, I am disagreeing.
If the only thing that allows people to access a page, or not be misled,
is a difficult to test checkpoint, should they be left out in the cold,
on a academic criteria. Again,  minimum conformance will be the end
point for many content providers.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
To: "Web Content Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'


> I would also like to remind participants that the question currently 
> before the group is: what should be the defining characteristics which

> distinguish checkpoints that belong in the minimum set, from those 
> which don't.
>
> The question of whether specific checkpoints belong in the minimum set

> (e.g., checkpoints 3.3 and 3.4) will be decided after we have settled 
> upon criteria for including checkpoints in the minimum set.
>
> Thus, discussion of whether checkpoints 3.3/3.4 should or should not 
> be in the minimum set is out of scope for the moment. Furthermore, 
> this group has agreed that checkpoints won't be included in the 
> normative document unless they are accompanied by adequate, testable 
> success criteria. The impact of that decision on checkpoints 3.3 and 
> 3.4 is a topic for later deliberation (it should be noted that some 
> members of the group doubt the adequacy of the success criteria 
> associated with these checkpoints; checkpoint 3.4 in particular 
> currently has no success criteria at all).
>
> To facilitate discussion and consensus building, please keep the 
> discussion at a general level, i.e., what should be the basis for 
> including checkpoints in the minimum set?
>
>
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2001 13:32:27 GMT

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