RE: Resolutions on Changes to REQUIREMENTS DOC

At 05:36 AM 2/1/02, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>I don't think I am satisfied with that. I think it is an explicit requirement
>that a user who is on one version can, by an accessible means, get to a
>version that suits them.

yes, we stated that - "according to user preferences"

>I am not sure that this requirement expresses that - "easily" doesn't really
>say enough about whether that requires the user to reconfigure their browser
>propoerly (users should, but I don't think we can rely on it in the next two
>years) or whether they should be able to do it from the content...

we don't want to assume how it will be done.  this will be covered in techniques.  all we want to state right now -- in the requirements document for WCAG 2.0 -- is that in WCAG 2.0 we believe server-side magic to help users easily find something that meets their preferences is a good thing.

>So for the moent I disagree.

please propose rewording or I think we will move forward with publishing this working draft, considering that we had consensus with those who were on the call yesterday.

--wendy

>On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>
>  In today's telecon we resolved to move forward with the following wording:
>
>    S1- Serving content in different forms to meet different user needs
>    and preferences is an acceptable way to comply with the guidelines,
>    as long as the different forms
>    - are complete (i.e., they provide equivalents for <em>all</em> the
>    content),
>    - are up to date, and
>    - can be easily selected according to user preferences.  Note: We will not make any assumptions about the method that is used, whether it be content negotiation or a link.
>
>
>  At 01:26 PM 1/31/02, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>  >Yep, I like the way Jo has phrased this. Note that the question of the
>  >difference between information and content is the subject of a glossary
>  >discussion at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2002Jan/0002 and
>  >following, especially because there are cases like this where the difference
>  >is meaningful.
>  >
>  >chaals
>  >
>  >On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Jo Miller wrote:
>  >
>  >  I agree with Charles and Gian on the content, though the wording is
>  >  still somewhat difficult. Can we use bullets in the Requirements
>  >  document? If so, a possible rewording might be something like the
>  >  following:
>  >
>  >  S1- Serving content in different forms to meet different user needs
>  >  and preferences is an acceptable way to comply with the guidelines,
>  >  as long as the different forms
>  >  - are complete (i.e., they provide equivalents for <em>all</em> the
>  >  information [content?]),
>  >  - are up to date, and
>  >  - can be reached via accessible, easy-to-find links in the other
>  >  versions of the content.
>  >
>  >  Edits welcome.
>  >
>  >  Jo
>
>
>
>-- 
>Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
>Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
>(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France) 

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

Received on Friday, 1 February 2002 09:54:06 UTC