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

Agenda

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:36:37 +1100
Message-ID: <15456.27781.124481.280617@jdc.local>
To: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Thursday, 7 February, 2100 UTC (4 PM US Eastern, 10 PM France, 8 AM
Eastern Australia, etc.) on the W3C/MIT Longfellow bridge:
+1-617-252-1038

This meeting continues our review and analysis of the success criteria
in WCAG 2.0.

Reminder: please review my proposed success criteria for checkpoint
3.2 as discussed last week:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0105.html

See further Lisa's discussion of 3.3:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0110.html
cmn continues on this thread: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0118.html
ls again:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0263.html
cmn on diff thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0265.html


Loretta's discussion of 4.1 is at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0147.html


Other group members who are working on success criteria
include:

Wendy (checkpoint 3.4), Paul (checkpoint 4.2), Katie (checkpoint 4.3)
and Gregg (checkpoint 4.4).

Note also the comments from Jim Ley which refer to various checkpoints
in WCAG 2.0. These comments can be found at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0175.html cp 1.5 and intro
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0176.html cp 1.1
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0177.html cps 2.2,2.3,2.5 and 2.7
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0178.html cps 4.1, 4.2, 4.3
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0179.html cp 4.4

To orient the meeting, it is important to recognize that our primary
focus should be on the testability and completeness of the success
criteria associated with each checkpoint, and not the broader question
of which checkpoints need to be implemented in order to justify a
conformance claim. In brief, the question is: given that a content
developer has decided to apply each of these checkpoints to her/his
site, is it clear what needs to have been accomplished in order for
the success criteria to have been met, and under what circumstances
action is required on the author's part? For example, a checkpoint
requiring text equivalents (checkpoint 1.1) is trivially satisfied if
there is no non-text content in a document, and this is clear from the
statement of the checkpoint as well as the success criteria. We need
to ensure that the same is likewise true at least of the testable
success criteria in all of our checkpoints: their conditions of
applicability must be clear, along with what would constitute
satisfaction of the success criteria.
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2002 18:36:46 GMT

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