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: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 04:22:41 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Hansen, Eric" <ehansen@ets.org>
cc: "'w3c-wai-ua@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0006260410510.25421-100000@tux.w3.org>
So maybe the answer is for us to include most of the statement of minum
requirement in the checkpoint text. This was something that we did with a
couple of checkpoints in the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines, but we
didn't go through this process as thoroughly for that document (which is one
of the reasons we recommended it for this one - so while not being sorry I
apologise for adding to the workload)

Charles McCN

On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Hansen, Eric wrote:

  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 ccklude the minimum requirement statements in conforming to
the checkpoint statement.
  Answer 2: By conforming to the minimal requirement of te checkpoint.
  
  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.
Received on Monday, 26 June 2000 04:22:50 GMT

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