RE: What determines what goes in level 1, 2, 3 etc as success criteria

Thanks Lee

 

   Both of those catches are good and what was intended.

 

 

Gregg

------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Ind Engr - Biomed - Trace,  Univ of Wis
gv@trace.wisc.edu

 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Lee Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 1:21 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: What determines what goes in level 1, 2, 3 etc as success
criteria

 

I'm confused with the terminology here.  "The site reviewed..."?  Should
we say, "The site content was reviewed ..."?

 

Level 2:

"The user asserts..."?  Perhaps, "The developer or designer asserts..."?

 

I'm still with the feeling that DOCTYPE should be in Level 1 success
criteria.  Additionally, I think LANG should be placed in Level 1 simply
because we would want the screen readers to read the information
correctly and not arbitrarily.  These two items are easily placed into
every site and can make it easier for the screen readers to do their
jobs.

 

Thanks,

Lee Roberts

"the site  reviewed the content with the objectives below in mind"

or 

 "The site asserts that they reviewed the content with the objectives
below in mind" 

 

Or level 2 that are 

" the user asserts they considered this and did the best they felt was
possible and appropriate."

 

But we don't want to have checkpoints that don't have any testable
measures that can be applied across sites (or we make some sites that
cannot claim any conformance since L1 is minimum)

 

AND - we don't want to take some checkpoints off the table for L1 (or
they might not even show up on people's todo list).

 

 

Your thoughts?

 

 

Gregg

------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Ind Engr - Biomed - Trace,  Univ of Wis
gv@trace.wisc.edu

 

--

For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@trace.wisc.edu <
<mailto:listproc@trace.wisc.edu> mailto:listproc@trace.wisc.edu>