W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: CONFORMANCE: new sentence on testability, plus comments

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 04:56:14 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
cc: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0205080455250.29644-100000@tux.w3.org>
Jason, your memory is (not surprisingly, in my experience <grin/>) correct. I
think that if we are setting confromance level criteria we should specify at
each level who is benefitting and who is not.



On Wed, 8 May 2002, Jason White wrote:

  Should the rationale under each checkpoint be stratified by
  conformance level? That is, should it be explicit as to who will most
  likely benefit from level 1 conformance, who will still be
  excluded unless level 2 or level 3 is met, and, where applicable, what
  the limitations of the checkpoint as regards making the content

  I recall a memorable statement by Charles McCathieNevile at a WCAG
  meeting (last November, if memory serves) to the effect that he wanted
  content developers and policy setters, via the guideline, to be aware
  of whom they were including and excluding by taking certain design
  decisions; and that the conformance scheme should facilitate such
  awareness. [Charles, please correct me if this summary misrepresents
  your assertions at the meeting.]

Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI  fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2002 04:56:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:41 UTC