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

REORG proposal #2 from Cynthia

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:15:24 -0500
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <000f01c35627$4a938140$ae17a8c0@USD320002X>
 

At last week's teleconference, I took an action item to create a reorganized
version per Cynthia's suggestions.  

Attached are the docs (with Ben doing the bulk of the actual work).

 

Cynthia made a number of suggestions including:

1.         Breaking the guidelines into three sections 

a.           Just the core required items 

b.          The extended items 

c.           The informative sections of the guidelines 

2.         That the core level 2 items (currently labeled "best practice
success criteria" in the latest review draft) be made into extended
guidelines. 

3.         That there be only one level of requirements for any checkpoint. 

 

The overall result is that there would only be core items with their
requirements and extended items with their requirements.

 

It was not clear exactly what the extended checkpoints that were derived
from the core level 2 success criteria would be called, and Cynthia wasn't
sure what they would be called either, yet.  For this draft, therefore,
they're just called "extended checkpoint 4 (core checkpoint name)".

 

It also wasn't clear how these new, extended items would be numbered.  So,
for this draft, they are numbered with the core number and then the letter
e.  So, the extended checkpoint for checkpoint 1.1 is called 1.1e.

 

Finally, it's not clear whether or not the informative components for each
guideline would have to be repeated for the core guideline and for the
extended guideline derived from the core.  We are dodging this question at
this point by simply having all the informative portions in the third
document and referring both to the core and the extended (when we put this
back into one document, we would have to resolve that issue).

 

Again, this is not the final proposal, but a first pass at exploring some of
the ideas that Cynthia had posted as an alternative to the approach that I
had proposed.

 

The goal was to have something that was simpler and had a simple
conformance.  You simply had to comply with the core and then could claim as
many extended checkpoints as you could meet all of the success criteria for.

 

 

Note: The collapsed views (where you can see only the core required or only
the core and extended without informative sections, etc.) is planned to be a
standard feature for any version of the guidelines we do.  The proposal here
is not just having different views, but splitting the core items and
collapsing the extended items. 

 

Before posting this, I ran it past Cynthia to make sure I captured most of
or all of the key aspects of her proposal as best as possible in first
draft.

 

Gregg

------------------------

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Human Factors 
Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
Gv@trace.wisc.edu < <mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu> mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <
<http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> 
FAX 608/262-8848  
For a list of our listserves  <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/




Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2003 19:15:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:25 GMT