RE: Numbering Success Criteria

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