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

RE: Please review latest requirements draft before Wednesday, 22 January

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 00:30:39 -0600
To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <001001c2bf84$49448210$056fa8c0@TOSHIBATABLET>

Hi Jason,

I agree with your edits on the 4.1 items

I also agree with your first suggestion on the Review Requirements.  (i.e.
"derived from the same XML Document")

For the second suggestion though that deals with removing "technology
specific" from "technology specific checklist item" I have two concerns.

1) just saying  "checklist item"  is too close to "checkpoint".  I think
there will be great and frequent confusion.

2) I don't think we will have "core" checklists.    If they apply to all
technologies, then I think they should be appended (or prepended) to the
technology specific list -- OR people will just do the technology specific
and forget the core.    

Also, if there is no technology specific list, people may do ONLY the core.


I think that ALL the Success Criteria need to be treated in each Technology
Specific List.  So there would not be anything left to check on a core
checklist.

SO
I think we should continue to say "technology specific checklist" and
"technology specific checklist item".  And I don't think we should have any
"core checklists" that exist separately from the technology specific
checklists.


As always, I'm interested in comments since this is a tricky area and it is
easy to miss things.

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 Jason White
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 1:58 AM
To: Wendy A Chisholm
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Please review latest requirements draft before Wednesday, 22
January


Here are a few minor editorial comments. I do not wish discussion of
these comments to hold up publication of the draft on the W3C's
Technical Reports page. Thus if any of these comments  prove
controversial they should be ignored.

Section 5: instead of saying that techniques and checklists are
expected to be stored in the same document, what we really should say is
that they are expected to be "derived from the same XML document".

Also, remove the term "technology-specific" from the phrase
"technology-specific checklist item". As currently worded it implies
that there can be no checklist items for core techniques (i.e.,
techniques that are not specific to any technology), a result which I
doubt is intended; or do we want to limit checklists only to
technology-dependent items? I suggest we omit "technology-specific",
thereby allowing checklist items to be given that correspond to the
core techniques.

Note: these are only minor comments that I am entirely willing to
retract if they raise problems. In fact, all of my opinions (on all
subjects) are open to be retracted or modified if good reasons or
evidence to the contrary are presented.
Received on Sunday, 19 January 2003 01:30:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:21 GMT