W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2000

RE: A Proposal To Not Establish "Minimal Requirements" - Response to D Poehlman's comments

From: David Poehlman <David.Poehlman@usmint.treas.gov>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:41:14 -0400
Message-ID: <B1E68D292F3CD111A57C0000F67CB3CA01BE1593@wdcsrv03.usmint.treas.gov>
To: "'Hansen, Eric'" <ehansen@ets.org>, "'w3c-wai-ua@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
I understand the confusion here but when we set out to develop a process for
establishing minimum requirements, we were not looking to establish minimal
requirements.  It can be made quite clear that the minimum requirements is a
subset of the requirements that if provided will meet the requirement.
often, the minimum requirement for a checkpoint is the only acceptable
target.  I don't like putting requirements in techniques.  What I was
refering to in the guide to the techniques senarion was to use techniques
that would satisfy the minimum requirements.  the min req document says,
this is what is mandatory to meet the checkpoint.  if you want to do this
and something else that furthers this fine or you can do nothing less than
this in some cases.  It was felt by the group as I recall and it was a pr
issue that there was no sure way to know if the goal of the checkpoint had
been satisfied.  meeting the min req is meeting the checkpoint but withoout
meeting the min req, somthing may not be done that satisfies the goal of the
checkpoint.  Any format this takes is fine with me but there is abase line
in all things developmental and this strategy lends its self well in
ascertaining how objectives can be achieved.  

David Poehlman wrote:

"the document further expresses but perhaps not clearly enough that the
minimum req is over arching and not necessarily all inclusive of meeting the
checkpoint.  think of it as  a guide to the techniques document if you
wish."

Eric now writes:

I agree that the process of looking for minimal requirements is important; I
just would not like to see them as a separate category of normative
requirement that competes with or undercuts the checkpoints themselves.

I think that it would actually be hard (and hazardous) to define what we
mean by minimum requirement and how that differs from the checkpoint itself.
By establishing minimal requirements that are separate from the checkpoint
statements themselves, one would would make things fuzzy by providing two
answers to the question: "How does one satisfy a checkpoint?":
Answer 1: By conforming to the checkpoint statement.
Answer 2: By conforming to the minimal requirement of te checkpoint.
dp to conform to a checkpoint, you must at least meet the min req.
Which is the correct answer?

In my view the best solution is that the checkpoint statement itself
captures, insofar as is practical, the minimal requirement, so that there is
only one answer to the question instead of (confusingly) two answers.

I like the suggestion that I think you are making when you refer to minimal
requirements as being a guide to techniques. I expect that some of what we
are identifying as minimal requirements should end up in the techniques as
possible -- and even encouraged, but not mandated -- ways of satisfying the
checkpoint.

===========================
Eric G. Hansen, Ph.D.
Development Scientist
Educational Testing Service
ETS 12-R
Princeton, NJ 08541
609-734-5615 (Voice)
E-mail: ehansen@ets.org
(W) 609-734-5615 (Voice)
FAX 609-734-1090
Received on Friday, 23 June 2000 12:38:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:04 GMT