- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:36:37 +1100
- To: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Thursday, 7 February, 2100 UTC (4 PM US Eastern, 10 PM France, 8 AM Eastern Australia, etc.) on the W3C/MIT Longfellow bridge: +1-617-252-1038 This meeting continues our review and analysis of the success criteria in WCAG 2.0. Reminder: please review my proposed success criteria for checkpoint 3.2 as discussed last week: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0105.html See further Lisa's discussion of 3.3: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0110.html cmn continues on this thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0118.html ls again: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0263.html cmn on diff thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0265.html Loretta's discussion of 4.1 is at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0147.html Other group members who are working on success criteria include: Wendy (checkpoint 3.4), Paul (checkpoint 4.2), Katie (checkpoint 4.3) and Gregg (checkpoint 4.4). Note also the comments from Jim Ley which refer to various checkpoints in WCAG 2.0. These comments can be found at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0175.html cp 1.5 and intro http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0176.html cp 1.1 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0177.html cps 2.2,2.3,2.5 and 2.7 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0178.html cps 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0179.html cp 4.4 To orient the meeting, it is important to recognize that our primary focus should be on the testability and completeness of the success criteria associated with each checkpoint, and not the broader question of which checkpoints need to be implemented in order to justify a conformance claim. In brief, the question is: given that a content developer has decided to apply each of these checkpoints to her/his site, is it clear what needs to have been accomplished in order for the success criteria to have been met, and under what circumstances action is required on the author's part? For example, a checkpoint requiring text equivalents (checkpoint 1.1) is trivially satisfied if there is no non-text content in a document, and this is clear from the statement of the checkpoint as well as the success criteria. We need to ensure that the same is likewise true at least of the testable success criteria in all of our checkpoints: their conditions of applicability must be clear, along with what would constitute satisfaction of the success criteria.
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2002 18:36:46 UTC