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

RE: 4.1 action item

From: Slaydon, Eugenia <ESlaydon@beacontec.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:07:40 -0500
Message-ID: <D47827B1DE559D458AB76C6E6EADFC669CCF38@tortugas.beacontec.com>
To: "'Loretta Guarino Reid'" <lguarino@Adobe.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
<<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.>>

This one is confusing. If you hadn't pointed out "event handlers" I would
have assumed that "device-independence" referred to devices such as PDA,
cell phone, browser, UA, etc. May need a rewording on this one.

Eugenia

-----Original Message-----
From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lguarino@Adobe.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 3:51 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: 4.1 action item


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 16:04:16 GMT

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