W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: WCAG Guidelines and Support DocumentsV2.doc

From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 12:00:43 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20050826112533.00ae4528@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Would each SC have at least one "sufficient" technique (for satisfying the 
SC) associated with it (in other words, would every Guide Document include 
at each one such "sufficient" technique - referring to item #3 in 
Overview)?   I didn't notice such an explicit statement in this overall 
document, although it may be implied
in several places.  Such a statement would seem to me to ensure that each 
SC would, by transitivity, be associated with at least one Test Document 
(since each SC would have a "sufficient" technique associated with it 
(unstated?), and each "sufficient" technique would have a Test Document 
associated with it (stated)).    It seems to me that with the current 
wording it may be allowable for the list of "sufficient" techniques in a 
Guide Document to be zero; in that case, some SCs may not have "sufficient" 
techniques, and so how would conformance to those particular SCs be measured?

Also, how is it objectively determined (measured) to be "known" to be 
sufficient" for satisfying a SC (referring to third paragraph following 
"Guide Documents" heading?    Is such a process of determination documented 
anywhere?   I was not able to locate such documentation..

Finally, if content is "available" in a form that would "satisfy" a SC 
(referring to third sentence, third paragraph following "Tests" heading), 
how would such availability and satisfaction be objectively determined, if 
not via a "sufficient" technique?   The implication to me when considering 
the second and third sentences together in the third paragraph following 
"Tests" heading is that some other measure of satisfaction would be used 
for a form of available content besides use of a "sufficient" 
technique.   If this is a correct assumption on my part,
what would the other measure be?

I apologize in advance for any misunderstandings or misinterpretations on 
my part, as I read through this document rather quickly..

Thanks and best wishes,
Tim Boland NIST

  01:56 AM 8/25/2005 -0500, you wrote:

>Proposal for our documents and how they fit together
>
>
>
>For discussion at meetings this week and next.
>
>
>
>
>
>These are a work in progress.
>
>
>
>They are the result of Input from John, Wendy, Ben, Michael and Shawn.
>
>
>
>But all the bad parts are from me.
>
>
>
>Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
>PS the templates don't match the document exactly in some places because 
>of last minute edits and not enough time to get them all in synch.
>
>
>
>See you tomorrow.
Received on Friday, 26 August 2005 16:01:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:39 GMT