Re: Numbering Success Criteria

To the group -

Personally, depending upon readership all of the options have a place.  I
like Option #1 the best as it seems the easiest to understand.  I'd like to
see the conformance standards separate from the checkpoints.  This, of
course, is only my opinion and the other options have validity in their own
right. This is a hard call.

Doyle Burnett


----- Original Message -----
From: "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 6:22 AM
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 Tuesday, 10 December 2002 18:08:39 UTC