Re: Action item: proposed rewording for Checkpoint 4.2, Criterion 1

MessageJohn, Cynthia and the group -

I like the re-wording as it gives a clear picture of the developers intention.  Sounds very good.  Thanks to you both.  

Doyle Burnett, MEd
Education and Training Specialist

Special Education Service Agency
www.sesa.org
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John M Slatin 
  To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 2:06 PM
  Subject: Action item: proposed rewording for Checkpoint 4.2, Criterion 1


  At last week's telecon, Cynthia and I took an action item to see if we could clarify the wording for Checkpoint 4.2, success criterion #1.  Here's our proposal:

  Current wording for Checkpoint 4.2, success criterion #1
  1.    a list of technologies and features, support for which is required in order for the content to be operable, has been determined and the content is still usable when features not on the required list (for example, scripting and stylesheets) are turned off or not supported.

  Proposed rewording for Checkpoint 4.2, success criterion #1
  1.    The Web resource includes a list of the technologies users must have in order for its content to work as intended.  Users who do not have some of these technologies can still access and use the resource, though the experience may be degraded.

  Discussion
  This proposal addresses the original intention of the checkpoint, as Cynthia (who wrote it in the first place) explained it last week.  Gregg offered a quite different interpretation of the original wording, which is not addressed here.

  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