Re: Numbering Success Criteria

I'm leaning toward Option #4, since it separates the level and criterion
from the checkpoint numbering schema, and is self-contained for each
level. 

Avi

Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
> 
> 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 13:52:53 UTC