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

RE: Numbering Success Criteria

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 13:59:19 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021209135729.023f1ec0@localhost>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:20 GMT