- From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:57:59 -0500
- To: "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I assume the following is a typo (this occurs in both <dd> items defining core and extended checkpoints). "Best Practice items to do not need to be met..." Explanation of extended checkpoints is difficult to understand. Item #1. Current wording: "No conformance claim of any kind may be made..." Proposal: Change to positive statement: "In order to make a valid conformance claim for a Web resource, the resource must satisfy all required success criteria for all Core checkpoints." Or "A Web resource must satisfy all required success criteria for all core checkpoints in order for a conformance claim to be valid." Rationale: the negative form of the current wording is difficult to parse (e.g., for non-native speakers and possibly for people with reading difficulties). Item #2 Current wording: "If all ... Then a claim ..." Proposed: "A conformance claim of "WCAG 2.0 Core" can be made if all required success criteria for all core checkpoints have been met." Rationale: To improve readability by simplifying the syntax. Item #3: Same as #2. Item #4: Ditto. Finally, it's not clear who the audience for the remarks under "Sites that conform to WCAG 1.0" is. Reads like an internal note to WG members, or like the hwole thing is a reviewer's note... Hope this helps. John John Slatin, Ph.D. Director, Institute for Technology & Learning University of Texas at Austin FAC 248C 1 University Station G9600 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: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 9:34 am To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Please review: Updated draft of conformance section for next draft Hello, At last week's meeting, I took an action to update the draft conformance section based on discussion. It is attached. Major changes: 1. added "Best Practice items to do not need to be met to claim conformance to a Checkpoint." to explanations of Core and Extended. 2. added summary of issues with Core+ to bullet 4 of "Conformance Claims" --wendy -- wendy a chisholm world wide web consortium web accessibility initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI/ /--
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2003 15:58:06 UTC