W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > June 2003

Fwd: Re: WAI guidelines question from QAWG

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 08:47:42 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030602084604.02dc1c50@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

QAWG --

This is some background about LC-80.  I was the Originator of LC-80.  It 
was based on something that recalled from a WAI GL document.  So far, I 
can't find where I saw it.  Nor does Ian remember exactly...


>Subject: Re: WAI guidelines question from QAWG
>From: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
>To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
>Cc: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>,
>         Jon + Tracy + Palmer + Catherine Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>,
>         ij@w3.org
>Organization: W3C
>X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4
>Date: 01 Jun 2003 21:21:10 -0400
>X-RCPT-TO: <lofton@rockynet.com>
>
>Hi Lofton,
>
>The UAWG may have gone down that path at some point. I recall
>a model where the claimant could use common sense to exclude
>inapplicable checkpoints. But I looked back as far as March
>2000 and even in that draft, there was a finite list of
>scenarios where you could claim inapplicability.
>
>My sense is that if you leave the decision in the hands
>of the claimant, it becomes difficult to compare claims
>and especially to have a standard measure for conformance.
>
>Sorry I can't be of more help,
>
>  - Ian
>
>On Sun, 2003-06-01 at 21:01, Lofton Henderson wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I wonder if one of you can help me with this question.
> >
> > At some point in the past, I remember seeing something in one of the WAI
> > specifications.  I can't find it now in any of the most recent published
> > versions (WCAG20, UAAG10, ATAG20).  Perhaps it was in an older version and
> > it was removed or changed.
> >
> > The topic:  when one is making a conformance claim or filling out a
> > checklist, what does one do if one thinks that the checkpoint does not or
> > should not apply, but the checkpoint does not indicate any conditionality
> > on applicability?  (I'm not thinking here of the well-defined 
> applicability
> > exclusion model of Rec UAAG10, but perhaps what I am remembering was an
> > early precursor of it.)
> >
> > What I remember seeing was a specification of how one stated one's belief
> > about non-applicability, even though (as I recall) doing so did not change
> > the conformance requirement.  I.e., one is not relieved of the
> > responsibility to conform to the CP in order to achieve the given
> > conformance level, but one is given the opportunity to say why the CP
> > should not apply.
> >
> > Does this sound familiar to anyone?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Lofton.
>--
>Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Monday, 2 June 2003 10:47:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:13 GMT