Re: CONSENSUS REVISED 9-20-01

Gregg,

         I see problems with this .... if it is applied to the inclusion of 
illustrations, it would be easy to fulfill by adding graphics, but 
determining the illustrative value of the chose graphics may not be 
objective. Likewise ... an alt tag may be determined as a string of text in 
the right box, but determining the equivalency of the alt tag will not be 
objective ...

         Seems some guidelines/checkpoints could have both normative and 
non-normative attributes and techniques ...

>N3 -  normative is determined by objectiveness  -- ease of establishing
>consensus on fulfillment.


                                         Anne


At 06:46 PM 9/20/01 -0500, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>Here is the latest list of CONSENSUS STATEMENTS
>
>New ones are marked with  **
>
>Please read them over and comment if you don’t consens.
>Thx
>G
>
>
>
>Consensus means "I can live with that".    These are posted to see if
>there are problems with listing these as consensus for the working group
>at this time - so we can move on to those things where we need to
>address our
>discussion.
>
>
>ITEMS WHERE THERE WAS CONSENSUS IN THE GROUP.
>POSTED TO THE LIST FOR REVIEW.
>
>
>RE: OUR GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS
>
>R1 - That what we develop should be usable by people who are writing
>regulations or requirements or policies (government, company, agency
>etc.)  This is not the ONLY group - but it is one group we need to
>address.
>
>R2 - That our guidelines should not necessarily be directly usable or
>adoptable as regulations
>
>R3 - That our guidelines should have a "harmonizing" effect on
>regulations -- so that they cause regulations to be written so that they
>are similar and create similar or at least compatible demands on
>companies and individuals who must follow the regulations or standards
>or policies.
>
>
>
>RE:  WHAT SHOULD BE NORMATIVE
>
>N1 - that technology specific checkpoints should be normative
>
>N2 - we shouldn’t be including anything (as normative) that we can't
>provide techniques and examples for.
>
>N3 -  normative is determined by objectiveness  -- ease of establishing
>consensus on fulfillment.
>
>N4 -  we shouldn’t be including anything (as normative) that we can't
>provide success criteria for.
>
>N5 -  things that are normative must be testable.    (Testable does not
>mean it must be machine testable)
>
>N6 -  that “testable by a tool” should NOT be required for normative
>items
>
>N7 - normative items should not be determined by how easy it is to test.
>(in time and effort) (Testability may be a criterion, but not ease of
>testing)
>
>
>
>RE: LEVELS AND SUBSETS OF CONFORMANCE
>
>C1 - we want to have recognition for accomplishment beyond baseline
>
>C2 - it is good to have levels of conformance rather than just all or
>nothing.
>
>C3 - there is a minimum set that conformance should not be possible
>without.
>
>C4 - should not be able to claim conformance by disability
>
>C5 - we WCAG should provide a way for people to see  impact of items for
>particular disabilities but it should not be used for conformance.
>(see requirement 5)
>
>C6 - GL should provide hooks in WCAG to allow someone to provide a way
>for people to measure access against particular disabilities but it
>should not be used for conformance.     [ Who should/would do the tool?
>GL or EO or ?]   [Separate tool]
>
>** C7 -  The success criteria (for a checkpoint) must be sufficient.
>(i.e. if you do them you comply.   You would not have to do anything not
>in the list of success criteria.)
>
>
>
>RE:  CLIENT SIDE AND SERVER SIDE SOLUTIONS
>
>S1 - serving content in different forms is an acceptable way to comply
>with the guidelines as long as equivalents for all of the information
>are provided in the different forms and it is all available through the
>same URI  (though it may be linked to it)  (server side solutions are
>acceptable ­ as specified)
>
>
>
>RE:  BROWSERS
>
>** B1 - Techniques should specify if particular browsers are needed or
>will not work with the technique.  Or they should specify if they
>require particular technologies.  e.g.  You must have CSS2 support for
>this technique to work.
>
>
>RE: HOW OUR GUIDELINES ARE WRITTEN
>
>**W1 - Our document should be written as clearly and simply as is
>appropriate for the content, with links to definitions.    We should go
>with the clearest and simplest language that someone can propose as long
>as it is accurate.

Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45

Received on Thursday, 20 September 2001 20:26:47 UTC