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

RE: CONFORMANCE: new sentence on testability, plus comments

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 17:42:23 -0500
To: "'john_slatin'" <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>, "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <charles@w3.org>, "'Jason White'" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
Cc: "'Web Content Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <00df01c1f7aa$d591d5d0$917f8e8d@laptop600>
RE:  Specific Benefits and People Excluded - by level for each
checkpoint


We have the coverage by disability provided in the benefits section for
each checkpoint.   

I don't think it is practical to do it by level for most checkpoints.
Usually all benefit some at each level.  Some just benefit more as you
go down.  Some - but usually rarely - receive no benefit as you have
deeper levels.    

Providing a list as to who would be excluded until you got down to a
lower level would require detailed descriptions of combinations of
disabilities, skills, technologies and web content.  

So I think we need to stay with benefits by checkpoint rather than
Levels.   It may work for some checkpoints but not all or most.

Anyone is welcome though to prove me wrong.    Would be wonderful
information if we could do it accurately.

Gregg

------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Ind Engr - Biomed - Trace,  Univ of Wis
gv@trace.wisc.edu

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf
> Of john_slatin
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 7:04 AM
> To: 'Charles McCathieNevile'; Jason White
> Cc: Web Content Guidelines
> Subject: RE: CONFORMANCE: new sentence on testability, plus comments
> 
> I like this approach very much.
> 
> John
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charles@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 3:56 AM
> To: Jason White
> Cc: Web Content Guidelines
> Subject: RE: CONFORMANCE: new sentence on testability, plus comments
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Chaals
> 
> 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
>   accessible?
> 
>   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 Thursday, 9 May 2002 18:43:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:19 GMT