Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'

Again, I am disagreeing.
If the only thing that allows people to access a page, or not be misled, is
a difficult to test checkpoint, should they be left out in the cold, on a
academic criteria.
Again,  minimum conformance will be the end point for many content
providers.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
To: "Web Content Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'


> I would also like to remind participants that the question currently
> before the group is: what should be the defining characteristics which
> distinguish checkpoints that belong in the minimum set, from those
> which don't.
>
> The question of whether specific checkpoints belong in the minimum set
> (e.g., checkpoints 3.3 and 3.4) will be decided after we have settled
> upon criteria for including checkpoints in the minimum set.
>
> Thus, discussion of whether checkpoints 3.3/3.4 should or should not
> be in the minimum set is out of scope for the moment. Furthermore,
> this group has agreed that checkpoints won't be included in the
> normative document unless they are accompanied by adequate, testable
> success criteria. The impact of that decision on checkpoints 3.3 and
> 3.4 is a topic for later deliberation (it should be noted that some
> members of the group doubt the adequacy of the success criteria
> associated with these checkpoints; checkpoint 3.4 in particular
> currently has no success criteria at all).
>
> To facilitate discussion and consensus building, please keep the
> discussion at a general level, i.e., what should be the basis for
> including checkpoints in the minimum set?
>
>

Received on Thursday, 25 October 2001 02:34:23 UTC