W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2003

RE: Action item: proposed rewording for Checkpoint 4.2, Criterion 1

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 19:41:11 -0500
To: "'John M Slatin'" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <00e001c335fb$7b66bd60$ae17a8c0@USD320002X>
I think this is very good.  Clear and expresses the original meaning.

 

I suggest we use this in the TR release.  If we want to question using this
at all. then we can still add the editors note. But replacing the old text
with this is a winner either way.  At least people will be able to read the
checkpoint and understand it properly so if they disagree it will be clear
what they disagree with.

 

Nice job. 

 

 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of John M Slatin
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 5:06 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Action item: proposed rewording for Checkpoint 4.2, Criterion 1

 

At last week's telecon, Cynthia and I took an action item to see if we could
clarify the wording for Checkpoint 4.2, success criterion #1.  Here's our
proposal:

 


Current wording for Checkpoint 4.2, success criterion #1


1.    a list of technologies and features, support for which is required in
order for the content to be operable, has been determined and the content is
still usable when features not on the required list (for example, scripting
and stylesheets) are turned off or not supported.


Proposed rewording for Checkpoint 4.2, success criterion #1


1.    The Web resource includes a list of the technologies users must have
in order for its content to work as intended.  Users who do not have some of
these technologies can still access and use the resource, though the
experience may be degraded.

 

Discussion

This proposal addresses the original intention of the checkpoint, as Cynthia
(who wrote it in the first place) explained it last week.  Gregg offered a
quite different interpretation of the original wording, which is not
addressed here.

 

John

 

John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Institute for Technology & Learning
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.ital.utexas.edu <http://www.ital.utexas.edu/> 

 
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 20:41:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:22 GMT