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

4.1 action item

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:51:15 -0800
Message-Id: <200201222051.MAA26235@patagonia>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Action item - review Checkpoint 4.1 success criteria for testability.

Here is the current statement of the checkpoint and its success criteria:

******************

Checkpoint 4.1 Choose technologies that support the use of these guidelines. 

Success criteria 

You will have successfully chosen a technology that supports the use of these 
guidelines if the technology:

  1.permits equivalents to be associated with or synchronized with auditory, 
graphical, and multimedia content,
  2.allows the logical structure of the content to be defined independently of 
presentation,
  3.supports device-independence, 
  4.is documented in published specifications and can be implemented by user 
agent and assistive technology developers,
  5.is supported by user agents and assistive technologies. 

Issue: are these success criteria complete? If not, what should be added or 
changed? Should we provide a link to the XML guidelines?

Issue: should the checkpoint be reworked (or an additional checkpoint inserted 
here) to require that content be designed, as far as possible, so that it is 
amenable to automated accessibility testing?


***********

SC 1: This checkpoint seems testable. In fact, the techniques documents for 
each technology should explain how to provide these equivalents. We may want 
to rephrase this slightly, since not all technologies may support auditory, 
graphical, or multimedia content. If the technology does support them, 
however, equivalents are required.

SC 2: This seems testable, but we have had discussions on the list about the 
meaning of "logical structure" and "presentation". This is only testable to 
the degree that we believe we have clear definitions for those terms.

SC 3: I'm not sure what this success criterion means! I assume it is a 
reference to Checkpoint 2.5, but are "event handlers" technology specific? To 
make this testable, we may need to list the range of devices that should be 
supportable.

SC 4: "Documented in published specifications" is testable. Whether something 
can be implemented by user agents and assistive technology developers seems 
harder to judge. Can we identify what the UA and AT requirements are?

SC 5: We've reintroduced "Until User Agents...". Is it sufficient for there to 
be a single user agent and assistive technology that supports the technology?
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2002 15:51:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:18 GMT