W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2006

RE: What does WCAG mean by "a set of Web units"

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 21:07:17 -0500
To: "'Jason White'" <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>, "'WAI WCAG List'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000f01c6c4c6$88aa03d0$6501a8c0@NC6000BAK>

Hmmmm
Interesting. 

 We can't use claim - since there may not be one. 

A hypothesized claim at first seems arbitrary.  But if you think about it -
one could say...  If one is claiming level x conformance for the children's
portion of this website then .... etc.   

Since you are hypothesizing conformance to start with (since there is no
claim) then one could hypothesize scope too.

Hmmmm

Uh-oh.  

What if a site had a section for nuclear scientists and a section for
kindergarteners.   If you evaluated them separately they would conform.  But
someone could say - "if you evaluated this site as whole it would fail
xxxx".  So one could hypothesize something that failed when both pieces
would conform.  

This one also would also seem to fail the other suggestion (e.g. if claims
were made for both halves and they linked from the home page -- then the
suggestion that multiple claims from same source would have to conform
together would not necessarily work  (e.g. if there were different terms for
same functions for scientists and kindergarteners). ) 



I think we are getting closer.  But still not there yet. 


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jason White
> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 7:24 PM
> To: WAI WCAG List
> Subject: Re: What does WCAG mean by "a set of Web units"
> 
> 
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 08:56:24AM -0500, John M Slatin wrote:
> > Good catch, Jason, thanks. Here's one more tweak to make the point 
> > unmistakable (I hope...):
> > 
> > [was]All Web units within the scope of conformance. 
> > [new]All Web units within the scope of the conformance claim. 
> To which we should add, following Gregg's comment, "at the 
> same level of conformance".
> 
> We may wish to eliminate the reference to a "claim", on the 
> ground that a claim may never be made. What we mean is, in 
> fact, are all Web units wwithin the scope of that which is 
> claimed, or hypothesized for purposes of evaluation, to 
> conform at a given level of conformance.
> 
> The qualification regarding individual Web units which are 
> claimed to conform, The qualification regarding individual 
> Web units subject to separate claims having to be aggregated 
> for this purpose in so far as they are linked to one another, applies.
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 21 August 2006 02:07:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:46 GMT