- From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 15:18:22 -0400
- To: "Robert Neff" <robneff@home.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Rob, I'm not sure how this would look or who would fill it out. Is this to show how to satisfy WCAG checkpoints in a specific technology and how well the suggested techniques are implemented in a given user agent? Could you give a concrete example of what a few rows and columns of this matrix would look? Thanks, --wendy At 08:42 PM 8/18/00 , Robert Neff wrote: >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 > > > > -- wendy a chisholm world wide web consortium web accessibility initiative madison, wi usa tel: +1 608 663 6346 /--
Received on Thursday, 24 August 2000 15:15:48 UTC