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

RE: [techs] proposal to replace use of "rules"

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:21:56 -0500
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030128151613.0113e1c8@localhost>
To: gv@trace.wisc.edu, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

What I'm proposing is that a technique is a specific strategy (e.g., "Use 
the title element to provide a unique title for a page") and that we 
provide supplementary information for that technique (e.g., examples, 
descriptions, etc.).

Thus, a checklist is list of techniques.   A checklist does not contain the 
supplementary information for that technique.
--wendy

At 02:53 PM 1/28/2003, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>That works ok for the techniques doc,  but for the checklists we need
>checklist items.
>
>There may be 3 or 5 techniques for a success criteria.   To meet the
>criteria you would not need to do all 5.  but you may have to do one of
>them.  Or two of them. Or some combination or another.
>
>In order for us to have a checklist, there will need to be very specific
>checklist items.  And these would be different from techniques which is a
>much broader category of ideas, strategies, techniques, options etc.
>
>So I think we still need to find the word for those "things"
>
>Best I have heard so far is   Technology Specific Checklist Items or  TSC
>Items.
>
>
>
>
>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 Wendy A Chisholm
>Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 12:02 PM
>To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>Subject: [techs] proposal to replace use of "rules"
>
>
>Hello,
>
>A while ago (january 2002?), when we began making the techniques documents
>more testable we used the phrase "rules" for the testable statements.  For
>a reminder of what this looks like, refer to the HTML Techniques [1]. We
>didn't want to use "checkpoint" or "criterion" since we wanted to
>distinguish the technology-specifics from the general guidelines and
>checkpoints.
>
>However, there are many acknowledged issues with the term "rule."  e.g., it
>could be confused with the 508 rules, it may be interpreted as being too
>prescriptive. etc.  Thus, to continue the discussion about what term to use
>instead, here is a proposal.  First, at the top level we currently have:
>Guidelines which are made up of checkpoints
>Checkpoints which are made up of success criteria
>success criteria
>
>I propose that at the technology-specific level we have:
>(one or many) techniques that show how to meet a top-level success criterion
>a technique is a combination of:
>- the technique (e.g., "Use the meta element to...")
>- examples
>- descriptions
>- etc. (all the other stuff from the schema and techniques requirements)
>
>for those of you interested in the schema, i think we can continue to use
>the element "rule" but when we generate documents from the xml we do
>something along the following:
>
>====
>TITLE: the document title
>
>Techniques:
>Use the TITLE element to describe the document.
>====
>
>Basically, replace "Rules" with "Techniques."
>
>--wendy
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/wcagtech020320.html
>
>--
>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 Tuesday, 28 January 2003 15:22:04 GMT

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