W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: Agenda April 29th: Level 1 Success Criteria

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 08:25:50 -0500
Message-ID: <C46A1118E0262B47BD5C202DA2490D1A1E3119@MAIL02.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

There's at least one problem with my proposed wording for the explnation of Level 1 success criteria:

I wrote:
    1. Do not set limits on content or presentation;

The problem is that it's incorrect: by requiring text equivalents for non-text elements we *are* making demands on content and presentation (alt text, captions, and longdescs all involve content, and they have to be presented somehow).

I think we can delete this item and leave the remaining ones in place.  Doing so might even have the benefit of making the difference between Levels 1 and 2 clearer.

"Good design is accessible design." 
Please note our new name and URL!
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
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.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 12:26 am
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Agenda April 29th

Time: 2100 UTC        (4 PM US Eastern)
Number:  +1-617-761-6200, passcode 9224 
irc.w3.org 6665, channel #wai-wcag
Agenda for this week

1. Action items  

2. Conformance 

    - Do all items at all 3 levels needed to be testable?  [1]
    - Do we want to have advisory items that are not testable in the guidelines doc?

    - Working definition of the criteria for placing items in each of the three levels [2] 

    - consensus about whether or not all of the 3rd group 
      need to be met to claim 3rd category of conformance?  

   - what do we want to call the 3 levels of conformance 
         - should we coord w/EO
         - is the naming more of a marketing than technical issue?)

3.  open issues,  
	-  Color - Issue 317


[1]  Current Proposal
Success criteria for all levels would be testable.   Some success criteria
may be machine-testable. Others may require human judgment.  Success criteria that require human testing would, in the judgment of the working group members, yield consistent results among multiple knowledgeable

[2]  Latest proposal - based on John's submission and working group discussion - but does not yet reflect our decisions regarding scope - so will need discussion and editing. 

    1. Do not set limits on content or presentation;
    2. Achieve a minimum level of accessibility through markup,
        scripting, or other technologies that interact with user agents,
        including assistive technologies;

    3. The working group felt could be reasonably be applied to all Web 


   1. Build on Level 1;
   2. Increase accessibility both though additional facilitation of user
agent based        
       accessibility and through content and/or presentation that provides direct 
       accessibility without requiring intervention by user agents or
assistive technology;     
   3. The working group felt could be reasonably be applied to all Web resources;


1. Go beyond Level 1 and 2 to increase direct and user agent enhanced accessibility
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2004 09:26:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:49 UTC