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

Re: Topics for Face - to - face call for comments to the list.

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 09:51:49 +1000
Message-ID: <16612.41877.193638.340206@jdc.local>
To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Gregg Vanderheiden writes:
 > 
 > 
 > At the upcoming face to face we will be discussing the following topics
 > among others.  We would like to ask people interested in these topics to
 > post comments to the list between now and then to help inform the
 > discussions at the meeting.  

Brief comments on some of the topics appear below. I won't be able to
attend the meeting in person or by teleconference as it clashes with a
conference in which I am involved.
 > 
 > - conformance, scoping

See my comments at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0676.html,
which still apply.

 > - checklists (normative vs informative)

In discussing this topic, Gregg distinguished between (1) techniques
that are to be implemented in tools, and (2) techniques that can be
used by authors and which work well without any implementation in
software. There is a stronger ground for making items in the first
category stable and for defining them precisely, with exact language,
examples and test cases. This is where there may be a good argument
for normativity at the technology-specific level, especially where the
success criteria do not determine which techniques are used when they
are applied to a given technology. I do not necessarily think the case
for normativity is overwhelming, and it needs to be examined having
regard to experience gained from the compilation of techniques
documents.

Of course, technologies for which we don't provide checklists wouldn't
be covered in this way, i.e., none of the technology-specific
requirements would be normative. The only solution I can think of here
would be radically to change our approach to conformance, as follows:

1. Define the notion of a "content accessibility policy", which
   provides a complete checklist with all technology-specific
   requirements included, at the desired level of WCAG conformance.
   The policy might also include certain exceptions (scoping or
   otherwise) that are explicitly allowed to be made according to
   WCAG.

2. The policy, not the content, conforms to WCAG 2.0, i.e., to the
   high-level guidelines document.

3. Content conforms to the policy.

4. Sample policies would be published with WCAG 2.0 to cover a broad
   variety of requirements, but implementors would be free to write
   their own policies to cover situations or technologies that we
   haven't considered.

Note that under this type of proposal, the content does not conform to
WCAG, but rather to a policy which must itself be a correct
interpretation of WCAG requirements down to the technology-specific
level.
 
 > - checklists form and format 

Either as questions or as assertions that can be "checked off" as true
or false. Where different alternatives for satisfying a success
criterion are offered, these must be made absolutely clear in the
checklist. There should be an XForms model for each checklist which
verifies whether it has been completed correctly.

 >    links to techniqes/gateway


 >    other issues from bugzilla  
 >    numbering success criteria
 > - planning and next steps
 > 
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2004 20:08:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:58 UTC