- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:27:51 -0400
- To: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
- CC: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Tim Boland wrote:
> Good job overall! I have a few questions on Guidelines link following:
>
> (1) in section 3.2 guidelines "relative priority checkpoints" part, the
> text for
> "web content checkpoints" and "authoring interface checkpoints" seems
> almost identical.
> Can we simplify by combining these clauses, or do we anticipate that
> there will be significant
> differences between them in the future?
I can possibly see combining the two categories of WCAG relative
checkpoints (Web content and Web content-based authoring interfaces),
but I'd like to see the ISO16071 relative category alone.
> (2) Under section 3.3.1 Claimants, point 3 seems to be covered under
> point 2 (if claimants are responsible for..,
> then they are expected to retract..etc.). Furthermore, the last part
> of point 3 ("demonstrated
> that" ..--by others?--), seems to contradict in a sense point 2
> ("claimants are responsible for"). Should we drop point 3 (not needed)?
I think these are very good points. Perhaps we need to look at the more
precise language used in UAAG 1.0:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-UAAG10-20021217/conformance.html#conformance-claims
Point 3 is quite tricky. I'd like to see something which asks people to
refrain from making false claims. But who will ask them to withdraw a
claim? The AUWG? A third-party reviewer? A competitor?
> (3) section 3.2 talks about "normative" success criteria. Are there
> any other kind at this time? Are there likely
> to be non-normative success criteria in the future?
I think it was just for emphasis.
Cheers,
Jan
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 18:28:17 UTC