- From: Robert Neff <robneff@home.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 20:42:02 -0400
- To: "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
has anyone considered a master compliance matrix between the WCAG, User Agent, Page Authoring and what else are we missing. this would be used by groups and manufacturers and would be for requirments management - that is one could test complaince and record it and eventually post ti to the web. this would be a rating sheet for all to see! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org> To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 6:15 PM Subject: Organizing WCAG 2.0 > Hi folks, > > While I haven't read all of the WG email on this topic, I would > like to speak out in favor of a very simple model for > organizing the WCAG 2.0 documents. The model (which requires no > additional vocabulary from what we use today in the WAI > Guidelines) is the following: > > 1) A checkpoint is a requirement that is general enough to > apply to more than one technology. One document contains > all of these checkpoints. It is called "WCAG 2.0." > It should be short. You don't claim conformance to this > document. > > 2) For each technology the WG will be addressing (pick HTML), > create a document entitled "Applying WCAG 2.0 to HTML". > In that document, each checkpoint explains what is required > to satisfy it in HTML. People claim conformance to WCAG 2.0 > for HTML with a URI that designates this document. This document > would mention HTML elements and attributes by name. > > 3) Each technology-specific profile of WCAG 2.0 has a > corresponding techniques module. There will also probably be > a core techniques module for general information. > > 4) It's easy to create a checklist to answer the question > w"What do I have to do in HTML 4 to conform to WCAG 2.0?". This > checklist would be a (short) view of "Applying WCAG 2.0 to HTML". > > 5) Priorities apply to the technology-specific parts of each > checkpoint. For example, it is a P1 to provide "alt" for IMG > (required by HTML 4), it is a P1 to provide a "longdesc" for > complex images, otherwise "longdesc" for images is a P2, etc. > There are no priorities on checkpoints in WCAG 2.0, just on > how to satisfy them in a given technology. > > 6) You can organize checkpoints in WCAG 2.0 however you > wish, though I don't recommend any deeper hierarchy than > one level, like the current guidelines/checkpoints > organization in WCAG 1.0. In UAAG 1.0, we do have > "principles", but they are part of the introductory prose. > > Comments welcome, > > - Ian > > -- > Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs > Tel: +1 831 457-2842 > Cell: +1 917 450-8783 > >
Received on Friday, 18 August 2000 20:48:39 UTC