Re: Requirement for Disability-based Checkpoint Identification

At 09:36 AM 2000-10-09 -0700, kynn@idyllmtn.com wrote:
>Al, the draft requirements document for WCAG 2.0 [1] states:
>
>Clearly identify who benefits from accessible content
>
>* WCAG 2.0 will clearly identify the target audience of each requirement.
>* WCAG 2.0 will address as completely as possible the needs of users with 
>  - blindness,
>  - low vision,
>  - color deficit or distortions,
>  - deafness,
>  - hearing loss,
>  - impairments of intelligence, memory, or thinking,
>  - the inability to interpret and/or formulate language symbols,
>  - learning disabilities,
>  - speech impairments,
>  - paralysis, weakness, and other problems with movement and coordination of
limbs,
>  - photo sensitive epilepsy,
>  - and combinations thereof.
>
>Do you feel that this is an appropriate requirement and do you feel that
>the approach you outlined will address this requirement?
>

Yes, I think that the approach I outlined meets this requirement.

Thank you for expanding from "Disability-based Checkpoint Identification" to
this quote.  

I took the shorter phrase to say something rather different from the
requirements document provision quoted.

The provision in the requirements document calls for a
requirement-by-requirement identification of (read: reference to) affected
groups, not a disability-based checkpoint identification (read: designation). 
The disability groups exist; identification in this case means saying which
one, from some pre-existing vocabulary of descriptors.  The checkpoints are
what we are synthesizing.  We create them.  In this case identification means
how we name them, which is new terminology we are introducing fresh into the
world.

You see, in the Grid Information Services Working Group there is a
architectural issue open as to how much we require the system to define
single-field 'identifiers' for things it knows about vs. whether the system
works on multi-field identifying patterns.  Because I am tightly wrapped
around
the problem of how to explain this tradeoff to them, the binding of
'identification' to "sufficient key, whether composed of one or more
properties" is very strong in my head at them moment.

I would still, even for people who don't twist English so much as I do,
suggest
that you invert your phrase to "identification of checkpoint-affected
disabilities" to make it clearly say only what the requirements document says.

Al

Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2000 08:59:45 UTC