- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 13:02:46 -0600
- To: "'Cynthia Shelly'" <cyns@microsoft.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Boy, This just shows how hard this one is. I don’t think we can have a checkpoint that asks the author to guess at the capabilities of a user. In this case do we mean "a" user (i.e. any one user) ? or "all" users (i.e. any user)? The first means nothing since they could pick someone who can see, hear, etc. The second one asks for a conclusion based on knowledge the person doesn’t have. Can we do this in a way that doesn’t require any knowledge of the user or his/her needs? (which will be the case for most authors). RE the second criterion Do we have a tool that an author could use to test this? I don’t know of many people who could answer this by just looking at a page. Especially if they created it with a Visual Authoring Tool and didn't know HTML. Cynthia -- I think these are progress but do you see the problems I'm referring to? Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Cynthia Shelly > Subject: Proposal for 1.5 success criteria > > Here's my action item from the 6th - reworked success criteria for 1.5 > > You will have successfully separated content and structure from > presentation if: > 1. A user can change the presentation to meet his/her needs, for > example by applying a different stylesheet > 2. The following can be derived programmatically from the content: > a. A logical, linear reading order > b. Hierarchical elements, such as headings, paragraphs and lists > c. Relationships between elements, such as cross-references and > associations between labels and controls > d. Emphasis > > > I've taken out the stuff about markup and data models. This is mostly > because I don't think it matters how the structure is made > programmatically available, as long as it *is* made programmatically > available. This approach is also more flexible for future technologies, > and a lot less wordy. I added #1 because I felt that user control > needed to be made more explicit. > > Let me know what you think, > Cynthia
Received on Monday, 17 December 2001 14:05:41 UTC