- From: john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
- Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 10:23:41 -0600
- To: "'Wendy A Chisholm'" <wendy@w3.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Wendy, Thanks for this. On first pass I found all four methods confusing as JAWS read your message aloud. On the next pass, though, I found Method 4 less confusing than the other three, so I'll go with that one for now. Are such numbering schemes likely to prove difficult for people with learning disabilities or other cognitive difficulties? Are there other methods that we should be considering, either instead of these or as supplements, to help people keep track of where they are in the scheme of things? John John Slatin, Ph.D. Director, Institute for Technology & Learning University of Texas at Austin 1 University Station G9600 FAC 248C Austin, TX 78712 ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524 email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu web http://www.ital.utexas.edu -----Original Message----- From: Wendy A Chisholm [mailto:wendy@w3.org] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 9:22 am To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Numbering Success Criteria At the July face to face, we agreed to uniquely number each success criterion. The editors have come up with 4 proposals for discussion. Please choose the method you prefer or suggest an alternative. Option #1: Number success criteria sequentially (no conformance information): You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at the Minimum Level if: 1.1.1 Non-text content that can be expressed in words has a text-equivalent explicitly associated with it. 1.1.2 Non-text content that can not be expressed in words has a descriptive label provided as its text-equivalent. + The text equivalent should fulfill the same function as the author intended for the non-text content (i.e. it presents all of the intended information and/or achieves the same function of the non-text content). You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at Level 2 if: 1.1.3 The text-equivalent has been reviewed and is believed to fulfill the same function as the author intended for the non-text content (i.e. it presents all of the intended information and/or achieves the same function of the non-text content) 1.1.4 A conformance claim associated with the content asserts conformance to this checkpoint at level 2. ====== Option #2 structure the numbering to reflect the conformance level of each checkpoint. You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at the Minimum Level if: 1.1.1.1 Non-text content that can be expressed in words has a text-equivalent explicitly associated with it. 1.1.1.2 Non-text content that can not be expressed in words has a descriptive label provided as its text-equivalent. + The text equivalent should fulfill the same function as the author intended for the non-text content (i.e. it presents all of the intended information and/or achieves the same function of the non-text content). You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at Level 2 if: 1.1.2.1 The text-equivalent has been reviewed and is believed to fulfill the same function as the author intended for the non-text content. (i.e. it presents all of the intended information and/or achieves the same function of the non-text content) 1.1.2.2 A conformance claim associated with the content asserts conformance to this checkpoint at level 2. ========== Option #3 include conformance level in brackets after each sequential numbering You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at the Minimum Level if: 1.1.1 [Minimum] Non-text content that can be expressed in words has a text-equivalent explicitly associated with it. 1.1.2 [Minimum] Non-text content that can not be expressed in words has a descriptive label provided as its text-equivalent. + The text equivalent should fulfill the same function as the author intended for the non-text content (i.e. it presents all of the intended information and/or achieves the same function of the non-text content). You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at Level 2 if: 1.1.3 [Level 2] the text-equivalent has been reviewed and is believed to fulfill the same function as the author intended for the non-text content (i.e. it presents all of the intended information and/or achieves the same function of the non-text content) 1.1.4 [Level 2] a conformance claim associated with the content asserts conformance to this checkpoint at level 2. ========== Option #4 Identify criteria by letter (e.g., a-c, instead of 1-3) and include conformance level You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at the Minimum Level if: 1.1-1a Non-text content that can be expressed in words has a text-equivalent explicitly associated with it. 1.1-1b Non-text content that can not be expressed in words has a descriptive label provided as its text-equivalent. + The text equivalent should fulfill the same function as the author intended for the non-text content (i.e. it presents all of the intended information and/or achieves the same function of the non-text content). You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at Level 2 if: 1.1-2a The text-equivalent has been reviewed and is believed to fulfill the same function as the author intended for the on-text content (i.e. it presents all of the intended information and/or achieves the same function of the non-text content) 1.1-2b A conformance claim associated with the content asserts conformance to this checkpoint at level 2. -- wendy a chisholm world wide web consortium web accessibility initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI/ /--
Received on Monday, 9 December 2002 11:23:46 UTC