W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > October to December 1999

Re: Proposed Text for Section 1.3 (was Re: Meeting tomorrow)

From: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:47:18 -0500
Message-Id: <v04011704b468412d2dee@[]>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>, w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Perhaps we should rename the section "Example Successful Implementations of
Guidelines." The intention is to show that implementation is possible and
here are some implementations as examples, not to compare and contrast


At 4:37 AM -0500 11/27/99, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>Tools are selected by people who want to do a review. I had hoped we would
>have some more input from tool developers, to give us a broader range of
>reviews. I have a coule of reviews in process at the moment - looking at
>different types of tool including image editors, a couple of SMIL tools, and
>Word processor type tools. Actually I was looking for things that showed what
>can be done (and how) - I don't think there is much value in a review of a
>tool that doesn't meet any checkpoints at all.
>I think this information is important to provide some further idea on how to
>check conformance - the issue that was raised in the Proposed Recommendation
>review comments, as well as to provide some ideas about how tools can meet
>checkpoints. Among other things, this allows us to provide reference
>implementations for how to meet particular checkpoints without having to
>produce complete reference implementations. I don't think there is any
>disagreement that creating a triple-A tool is a lot of work, and I don't
>think the Working Group is likely to be able to produce one as a
>demonstration. So working on this is important.
>In doing it, and particularly in working on an RDF scheme to describe the
>results, I have come to the conclusion that it is valuable to be able to
>describe conformance to relative priority checkpoints by including
>information about how a tool meets individual checkpoints of WCAG. However I
>feel that it is not necessary to have those checkpoints in ATAG - they
>are already available from a W3C recommendation, and even in checklist
>format. Familiarity with both specifications is required in order to do a
>good review, but then our guidelines make it clear that familiarity with WCAG
>is necessary to implement them anyway. Knowing a tool well seems to be the
>most important requirement, and then being able to think about how a tool
>satisfies the requirements listed.
>Essentially, these type of reviews can be done by anyone, and I think it is
>valuable to people looking to implement the specification if there are
>reviews done by the people who wrote it, and the more the better. This is
>analagous to a magazine reviewing software - they generally don't pretend to
>review every tool available.
>I have already explained why I think that reviews are only valuable if they
>can be reproduced, which requires "naming names", but I don't see that as a
>particular problem - all the information is publicly available anyway.
>Charles McCN
>On Fri, 26 Nov 1999, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>  I dunno, I can see where William is coming from here.  Do we have plans
>  to do a comprehensive survey or just a survey of a few selected tools?
>  If so, how will these be selected?
>  --Kynn
Received on Monday, 29 November 1999 09:42:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:28:22 UTC