RE: 4.1 action item

The success criteria for this checkpoint come from the XML Accessibility Guidelines (XAG) [1].
This point in particular has been edited in their most recent draft to read, "3.4 Use a device-independent interaction and events model / module. " and "3.5 Allow for user control of interaction timing - rate of change, external events triggering document changes, etc. "

Perhaps the best way to move forward on this checkpoint, is to make sure that the checkpoints in XAG are testable and then refer to them.  If not, we can work with PF to tighten up their spec.

--wendy

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xag

At 04:07 PM 1/22/02, Slaydon, Eugenia wrote:
><<SC 3: I'm not sure what this success criterion means! I assume it is a 
>reference to Checkpoint 2.5, but are "event handlers" technology specific?
>To 
>make this testable, we may need to list the range of devices that should be 
>supportable.>>
>
>This one is confusing. If you hadn't pointed out "event handlers" I would
>have assumed that "device-independence" referred to devices such as PDA,
>cell phone, browser, UA, etc. May need a rewording on this one.
>
>Eugenia
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lguarino@Adobe.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 3:51 PM
>To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>Subject: 4.1 action item
>
>
>Action item - review Checkpoint 4.1 success criteria for testability.
>
>Here is the current statement of the checkpoint and its success criteria:
>
>******************
>
>Checkpoint 4.1 Choose technologies that support the use of these guidelines.
>
>
>Success criteria 
>
>You will have successfully chosen a technology that supports the use of
>these 
>guidelines if the technology:
>
>  1.permits equivalents to be associated with or synchronized with auditory,
>
>graphical, and multimedia content,
>  2.allows the logical structure of the content to be defined independently
>of 
>presentation,
>  3.supports device-independence, 
>  4.is documented in published specifications and can be implemented by user
>
>agent and assistive technology developers,
>  5.is supported by user agents and assistive technologies. 
>
>Issue: are these success criteria complete? If not, what should be added or 
>changed? Should we provide a link to the XML guidelines?
>
>Issue: should the checkpoint be reworked (or an additional checkpoint
>inserted 
>here) to require that content be designed, as far as possible, so that it is
>
>amenable to automated accessibility testing?
>
>
>***********
>
>SC 1: This checkpoint seems testable. In fact, the techniques documents for 
>each technology should explain how to provide these equivalents. We may want
>
>to rephrase this slightly, since not all technologies may support auditory, 
>graphical, or multimedia content. If the technology does support them, 
>however, equivalents are required.
>
>SC 2: This seems testable, but we have had discussions on the list about the
>
>meaning of "logical structure" and "presentation". This is only testable to 
>the degree that we believe we have clear definitions for those terms.
>
>SC 3: I'm not sure what this success criterion means! I assume it is a 
>reference to Checkpoint 2.5, but are "event handlers" technology specific?
>To 
>make this testable, we may need to list the range of devices that should be 
>supportable.
>
>SC 4: "Documented in published specifications" is testable. Whether
>something 
>can be implemented by user agents and assistive technology developers seems 
>harder to judge. Can we identify what the UA and AT requirements are?
>
>SC 5: We've reintroduced "Until User Agents...". Is it sufficient for there
>to 
>be a single user agent and assistive technology that supports the
>technology?

-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium 
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
/--

Received on Thursday, 24 January 2002 15:50:45 UTC