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

[w3c-wai-gl] <none>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 16:55:53 -0500
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <005a01c23f26$5dcd7bd0$b817a8c0@laptop600>
Here is the result of today's telecon based on list comments and telecon
discussion. 

 

In the notes below 

MACHINE - means machine testable

HIRR - means Human evaluate-able with High Inter Rater Reliability
(meaning that raters who understood the issue and/or the measures would
agree when rating web content on the item.)

  

 

POSSIBLE GOAL STATEMENTS FOR CREATING LEVEL 1,2,3 etc SUCCESS CRITERIA

 

Criteria for Level 1 Success Criteria  {All of the criteria should be
true}

 

-           Must be testable (Machine or HIRR)  [as per previous email]

-           We want to recommend that Level 1 items be done everywhere
[or almost everywhere?]

O        Therefore needs to be things that can be done on every site -
no exceptions unless the exception is in the success criteria.

-           Important to access - not just relatively minor usability
tuning.  If these aren't done - people can't access the information.
(e. g. no captions)

RATIONALE:  If we make a Level 1 item that is unreachable for some
sites, then they will not be able to make any claim of any kind as to
access.  This would greatly lower incentive to do other items.
Therefore all Level 1 items need to be doable on almost all or all sites
-- and doable on very large and existing sites.  This is the MINIMUM.
We encourage everyone to also do level 2.   (and to do Level 3 wherever
possible)

 

 

 

Level 2 

      -         Must be testable (Machine or HIRR)

-         Things that go beyond Level 1 but that can still be done on
essentially all content on all sites (if designed properly)

RATIONALE:   These are things that we hope and encourage all sites to do
- and want these to be doable enough that we can ask all managers to
require (i.e. require Level 2 conformance)    These items make sites
more accessible or usable to people with disabilities and also make
sites accessible to more people who particularly those who have severe
problems related to this checkpoint.

 

 

Level 3 

      -          Things that are testable (Machine or HIRR) that aren't
in level 1 and 2

RATIONALE:  Don't expect these to be done on most sites. But would be
done on all sites that really want to go the extra mile

 

 

Additional / Advisory Items

-          Things that are not testable but are good ideas to address
this checkpoint (good advice)

-          Things that can't be done on all sites

-          Things that might be done to target or tune a site
specifically for a disability group who needs this checkpoint

 

 

NOTE:  As you go down the levels - you will pick up more and more people
who cannot use a site unless lower level items are implemented.  Thus
the lower levels make it easier for some people with disabilities, but
they will make it possible for others, particularly with multiple or
very severe disabilities.

 

 

 

 

COMMENTS ON WHY WE DON'T USE THE WCAG 1.0 APPROACH

 

A question that is often raised is "Why isn't the A, Double A, Triple A
format from WCAG 1.0 used?"

 

 

We looked at the     

-    MUST /  SHOULD  / MAY   or    

-    CAN'T USE  /  HARD TO USE  /  EASIER TO USE  

formats of the WCAG 1.0 guidelines - and couldn't make them work here.

 

One thing that we found in our work in the GL group - is that items that
make content easier to use for some people - are critical for others.
So all the items end up being "MUST" or "CAN'T USE WITHOUT" for some
people.     

 

Thus we decided that all checkpoints need to have Level 1 success
criteria, -- even if the success criteria were hard to write in a way
that was Machine testable or HIRR testable.  

 

As a result we sometimes have items that are worded like

 

"the site designer reviewed the content with the strategies listed below
in mind"

         or 

"The site developer/owners assert that they reviewed the content with
the strategies listed below in mind" 

 

Or on level 2 that are worded like

" the site designer asserts they considered strategies the listed below
and did the best they felt was possible and appropriate."

 

But we don't want to have checkpoints that don't have any testable
measures that can be applied across sites (or we make some sites that
cannot claim any conformance since L1 is minimum)

 

AND - we don't want to take some checkpoints off the table for L1 (or
they might not even show up on people's to do list).

 

 

 

 

 

-- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Human Factors 
Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
Gv@trace.wisc.edu <mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <http://trace.wisc.edu/> 
FAX 608/262-8848  
For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@trace.wisc.edu
<mailto:listproc@trace.wisc.edu> 

 
Received on Thursday, 8 August 2002 17:56:02 GMT

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