- From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:09:36 -0400
- To: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
- Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Tim, some additional comments: 1. Create common format for expressing success criteria: OK, is there a proposal? e.g., authoring tool must *action verb* ... 2. Terms: Many are different because they are different, however they should be defined as being different or consistent term used. 3. "Accessible" not defined: propose that accessible term be removed so it is not circular. 4. Subjective words: agree we must remove them. e.g. quickly, easily, etc. replace with "one step", or two keystrokes, etc.. 5. Technique language vs Criteria language: Should be fixed when 1 is applied. 6. Ensure semantics of criteria unique: Good question to ask, but don't agree that all are dups. See Jan's reply. 7. Version of WCAG: level yes, version no. Let's try to make the level of WCAG non normative so it can change in future without updating document. I agree with the call discussion today that we should use these points as a methodology in reviewing the success criteria once we get the meat (substance) or as we complete the substance of the criteria written. Regards, Phill Jenkins, (512) 838-4517 IBM Research Division - Accessibility Center 11501 Burnet Rd, Austin TX 78758 http://www.ibm.com/able Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>@w3.org on 04/14/2003 08:58:01 AM Sent by: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org cc: frederick.boland@nist.gov Subject: summary of ATAG WD success criteria evaluation for objectivity Attached is an html document which summarizes comments on evaluating ATAG WD success criteria for objectivity (as I was requested to do by Matt May). Comments welcome. Best wishes, Tim Boland NIST
Received on Monday, 21 April 2003 17:09:46 UTC