- From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 13:59:19 -0500
- To: "Cynthia Shelly" <cyns@microsoft.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
#4 also contains the conformance level. e.g., 1.1-1a Non-text content that can be expressed in words has a text-equivalent explicitly associated with it. 1.1 is the checkpoint number 1 is the conformance level a is the sequential number for that criterion thus, 1.1-2a would be the first success criterion (a) for Level 2 for checkpoint 1.1. --wendy At 01:31 PM 12/9/02, Cynthia Shelly wrote: >I think it's important to be able to tell very quickly which criteria >are the minimum, and have that info built into the numbering scheme. #2 >and #3 both do this. Either one of these is fine with me. > >#3 is clearest when reading the doc, but the bracketed info might get >dropped in discussions and/or 3rd party summaries, loosing the level >context. #2 has the info built right into the number, so it can't get >dropped, but the numbers are bit long. I'm not sure which is better. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Wendy A Chisholm [mailto:wendy@w3.org] >Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 7:22 AM >To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > > >At the July face to face, we agreed to uniquely number each success >criterion. The editors have come up with 4 proposals for >discussion. Please choose the method you prefer or suggest an >alternative. > >Option #1: Number success criteria sequentially (no conformance >information): > >You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at the Minimum Level if: > 1.1.1 Non-text content that can be expressed in words has a > text-equivalent explicitly associated with it. > 1.1.2 Non-text content that can not be expressed in words has a > descriptive label provided as its text-equivalent. > + The text equivalent should fulfill the same function as >the > author intended for the non-text content (i.e. it >presents > all of the intended information and/or achieves the same > function of the non-text content). > >You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at Level 2 if: > 1.1.3 The text-equivalent has been reviewed and is believed to > fulfill the same function as the author intended for the > non-text content > (i.e. it presents all of the intended information and/or > achieves the same function of the non-text content) > 1.1.4 A conformance claim associated with the content asserts > conformance to this checkpoint at level 2. > >====== > >Option #2 structure the numbering to reflect the conformance level of >each >checkpoint. > >You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at the Minimum Level if: > 1.1.1.1 Non-text content that can be expressed in words has a > text-equivalent explicitly associated with it. > 1.1.1.2 Non-text content that can not be expressed in words has a > descriptive label provided as its text-equivalent. > + The text equivalent should fulfill the same function >as the > author intended for the non-text content (i.e. it >presents > all of the intended information and/or achieves the >same > function of the non-text content). > >You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at Level 2 if: > 1.1.2.1 The text-equivalent has been reviewed and is believed to > fulfill the same function as the author intended for >the > non-text content. (i.e. it presents all of the >intended > information and/or achieves the same function of the >non-text content) > 1.1.2.2 A conformance claim associated with the content asserts > conformance to this checkpoint at level 2. > >========== > >Option #3 include conformance level in brackets after each sequential >numbering > >You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at the Minimum Level if: > 1.1.1 [Minimum] Non-text content that can be expressed in words >has a > text-equivalent explicitly associated with it. > 1.1.2 [Minimum] Non-text content that can not be expressed in >words > has a descriptive label provided as its text-equivalent. > + The text equivalent should fulfill the same function >as the > author intended for the non-text content (i.e. it >presents > all of the intended information and/or achieves the same > function of the non-text content). > >You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at Level 2 if: > 1.1.3 [Level 2] the text-equivalent has been reviewed and is >believed > to fulfill the same function as the author intended for >the > non-text content (i.e. it presents all of the intended >information and/or > achieves the same function of the non-text content) > 1.1.4 [Level 2] a conformance claim associated with the content >asserts > conformance to this checkpoint at level 2. > >========== > >Option #4 Identify criteria by letter (e.g., a-c, instead of 1-3) and >include conformance level > >You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at the Minimum Level if: > 1.1-1a Non-text content that can be expressed in words has a > text-equivalent explicitly associated with it. > 1.1-1b Non-text content that can not be expressed in words has a > descriptive label provided as its text-equivalent. > + The text equivalent should fulfill the same function >as the > author intended for the non-text content (i.e. it >presents > all of the intended information and/or achieves the >same > function of the non-text content). > >You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at Level 2 if: > 1.1-2a The text-equivalent has been reviewed and is believed to > fulfill the same function as the author intended for >the > on-text content (i.e. it presents all of the >intended > information and/or achieves the same function of the > non-text content) > 1.1-2b A conformance claim associated with the content asserts > conformance to this checkpoint at level 2. > >-- >wendy a chisholm >world wide web consortium >web accessibility initiative >http://www.w3.org/WAI/ >/-- -- wendy a chisholm world wide web consortium web accessibility initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI/ /--
Received on Monday, 9 December 2002 13:56:09 UTC