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

RE: Proposal for 1.5 success criteria

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 13:02:46 -0600
To: "'Cynthia Shelly'" <cyns@microsoft.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004901c1872d$6a594d40$b2176880@trace.wisc.edu>

This just shows how hard this one is.
I don’t think we can have a checkpoint that asks the author to guess at
the capabilities of a user.  In this case do we mean 
"a" user (i.e.  any one user) ?
"all" users (i.e. any user)?

The first means nothing since they could pick someone who can see, hear,

The second one asks for a conclusion based on knowledge the person
doesn’t have.

Can we do this in a way that doesn’t require any knowledge of the user
or his/her needs?  (which will be the case for most authors).

RE the second criterion

Do we have a tool that an author could use to test this?   I don’t know
of many people who could answer this by just looking at a page.
Especially if they created it with a Visual Authoring Tool and didn't
know HTML.

Cynthia --  I think these are progress but do you see the problems I'm
referring to?


-- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Cynthia Shelly
> Subject: Proposal for 1.5 success criteria
> Here's my action item from the 6th - reworked success criteria for 1.5
> You will have successfully separated content and structure from
> presentation if:
> 1.	A user can change the presentation to meet his/her needs, for
> example by applying a different stylesheet
> 2.	The following can be derived programmatically from the content:
> a.	A logical, linear reading order
> b.	Hierarchical elements, such as headings, paragraphs and lists
> c.	Relationships between elements, such as cross-references and
> associations between labels and controls
> d.	Emphasis
> I've taken out the stuff about markup and data models.  This is mostly
> because I don't think it matters how the structure is made
> programmatically available, as long as it *is* made programmatically
> available.  This approach is also more flexible for future
> and a lot less wordy.  I added #1 because I felt that user control
> needed to be made more explicit.
> Let me know what you think,
> Cynthia
Received on Monday, 17 December 2001 14:05:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:39 UTC