W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Instruction and Assessment

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:42:14 -0500
Message-ID: <3A770B06.B5DE3F19@w3.org>
To: "Hansen, Eric" <ehansen@ets.org>
CC: "'Jon Gunderson '" <jongund@uiuc.edu>, "'UA List (E-mail) '" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
"Hansen, Eric" wrote:
> 
> I can see what you are saying about the difference in priority. Here is
> another way to handle this that I think makes more overall sense...
> 
> Change checkpoint 6.1, which is P1 to encompass "all features of implemented
> specifications", including accessibility features.
> 
> New:
> 
> "6.1 Implement the features of all implemented specifications (markup
> languages, style sheet languages, metadata languages, graphics formats,
> etc.). This includes accessibility features of a specification, which are
> those identified as such and those that satisfy all of the requirements of
> the "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [WCAG10]. [Priority 1]"

"Implement implemented features" doesn't work. We have basically
chosen:
 * 6.2: To require conformance to specifications at a P2 level.
Non-conformance
   does not imply that it will be impossible to access content.

 * 6.1: To require implementation of accessibility features at a P1
level.

I don't think that we should increase the priority of 6.2, even if
our guidelines are clearly designed to promote conformance to
specifications.
The fact that we expect conformance (and don't include much in the
way of repair) does not imply for me that we should always require
conformance to all specifications. We do require conformance to some
specifications (for APIs) at a P1 level.

I think that in the proposed generalization, we lose the intention
of checkpoint 2.1, which is to ensure that the user has access to
all content. Of course, this could be a highlighted aspect of
a stronger requirement for conformance to specifications. But to
date the WG has made access to all content the P1 requirement, not
conformance to specs.

 - Ian

 
> Old (26 January 2001):
> 
> "6.1 Implement the accessibility features of all implemented specifications
> (markup languages, style sheet languages, metadata languages, graphics
> formats, etc.). The accessibility features of a specification are those
> identified as such and those that satisfy all of the requirements of the
> "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [WCAG10]. [Priority 1]"
> 
> The advantage of this is that it makes guideline 6 cover everything about
> conformance to specifications and guideline 2 cover display of content
> through the user interface.
> 
> To carry things a bit further, I would recommend considering a reordering of
> the guidelines.
> 
> GL 1 (old GL 6) - Ensure conformance to specifications
> GL 2 (old GL 2) - Display content through the user interface
> GL 3 (old GL 1) - Support input and output device independence
> GL 4 (old GL 3)
> GL 5 (old GL 4)
> GL 6 (old GL 5)
> GL 7 (same)
> GL 8 (same)
> GL 9 (same)
> GL 10 (same)
> 
> I think that the reordering is sensible because it puts guideline 6 up front
> where it belongs. It seems to me that we are placing greater reliance on the
> checkpoints in guideline 6 that ever before and it is time to give it the
> prominence that it deserves.

I don't have any strong preference about the ordering of the guidelines.

 - Ian


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 12:54 PM
> > To: Hansen, Eric
> > Cc: 'Jon Gunderson '; 'UA List (E-mail) '
> > Subject: Re: Instruction and Assessment
> >
> >
> > "Hansen, Eric" wrote:
> > >
> > > And if so, why do we really need to say it at all, since
> > conformance to
> > > specifications is an assumption underlying the whole document?
> >
> > The difference is priority: 6.2 is P2.
> >
> > > If this is the case, then the first sentence of checkpoint
> > 2.1 could be
> > > deleted.
> > >
> > > In that case, we would have the following:
> > >
> > > New:
> > >
> > > "2.1 Provide a view (e.g., a document source view) of the
> > text portions of
> > > content. This is only required for formats defined by
> > specifications that
> > > the user agent implements. [Priority 1]"
> > > Old (26 January 2001):
> > >
> > > Old:
> > >
> > > "2.1 Make all content available through the user interface.
> > As part of
> > > meeting this requirement, provide a view (e.g., a document
> > source view) of
> > > the text portions of content. This is only required for
> > formats defined by
> > > specifications that the user agent implements. [Priority 1]"
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > EH:
> > >
> > > Here is a revision of the checkpoint that pertains to
> > content produced by
> > > the user agent.
> > >
> > > New:
> > >
> > > "1.3 Ensure that every message (e.g., prompt, alert,
> > notification, etc.)
> > > that is a non-text element and is part of the user agent
> > user interface has
> > > AN AVAILABLE text equivalent. [Priority 1]"
> > >
> > > Old (26 January 2001):
> > >
> > > "1.3 Ensure that every message (e.g., prompt, alert,
> > notification, etc.)
> > > that is a non-text element and is part of the user agent
> > user interface has
> > > a text equivalent. [Priority 1]"
> > >
> > > Comment on revised checkpoint 1.3. This change makes
> > explicit that the text
> > > equivalent must be available to the user.
> >
> > I agree with this, though I am not sure it adds significantly to the
> > checkpoint.
> >
> >  _ Ian
> >
> > --
> > Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> > Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
> > Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
> >

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2001 13:42:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:29 UTC