[TECHS] Starting Point for Checklist Requirements

 
Here’s a first crack at a draft for the checklist requirements section
of the techniques/checklists requirements doc
(http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/sources/wd-wcag2-tech-req.html#checklis
t-req). 
 
It still needs a good deal of work, but hopefully it can serve as a
starting point for discussion in our teleconference later this morning. 
 
-Ben
 
Issues:
 
Terminology. The Schema labels testable statements in checklists a
"rule." Because some techniques will not be required (ex. they apply to
items in the "additional ideas category"). Because this is a checklist,
"checkpoints might be the best choice, but that is problematic given our
guidelines structure. However, I think we should consider using another
term. Some ideas include "measure" "benchmark" "checklist measure"
"checklist items" and "checkboxes." In the draft text below, "checklist
items" is used.
 
The assumption these requirements makes is that the checklists can be
constructed as a series of true/false statements where (for each
possible view of the checklists) all checklist items would apply to all
success criteria in the guidelines.
 
Draft Checklist Requirements:
 
1.) Technology-specific Checklists must include technology-specific
checklist items that address every success criterion in the guidelines.
Note: Any success criteria that include an "or" statement should have
all provisions included in one technology-specific checklist item so
that you do not have checklist items that you don't have to pass if
you’ve already addressed another item elsewhere in the checklist.
 
2.) Each success criterion addressed in a checklist needs to include a
list of checklist items that are both necessary and sufficient to meet
that success criterion.
Note: If there are 2 or 3 interchangeable techniques which could be used
to achieve a success criterion, they need to be listed all together in
one Checklist ITEM as an "OR" proposition.
 
3.) Checklists should be constructed such that all items in the
checklist must be marked true in order for the content to conform at
that level. 
 
4.) If there are no techniques for a particular technology that address
a specific success criterion, then a checklist item for that success
criterion must be present and must include information stating that the
content must also be provided in another form that meets all of Level 1
requirements. 
 
5.) Others?
 
Explanatory Notes:
 
To meet the minimum level conformance for a given checkpoint, all level
1 items in the checklist must be checked.
 
No checkboxes should be optional. If the technique is "extra" and does
not need to be done in order to meet a success criterion, then it should
be listed at the "additional strategies" level. In other words, there
shouldn't be any checkboxes at level 1 that are not required in order to
comply with level 1. (otherwise, you end up with a checklist where it's
ok to leave things unchecked and the checklist becomes an options list
instead.)
 
Where no techniques exist in a technology to address a success
criterion, a checklist item might say something like, "This success
criterion can not be met with this technology. Therefore, all of the
content and function provided by the content using this technology is
also available in another format which does meet all of the success
criteria at this level." 
 
* Parallel formats/alternate versions of content (or portions of
content) would need to meet all points at whatever level the conformance
claim being made claims. (min level 1 or level 2 if criterion is a L2
item, etc.)

* Alternate versions of content would always have to meet all of the
level 1, and would only have to meet all L2 if they were claiming L2
conformance, but not if they were claiming level 1+)

* This has to be done carefully so that what you don't do is have just
this one aspect of the content in another form. (ex. it can't be that in
one form it meets some criteria and in another form it meets others, but
there is no single form that meets all SC.  Especially not at the
minimum level – or any other complete level)


--
Ben Caldwell | caldwell@trace.wisc.edu
Trace Research and Development Center (http://trace.wisc.edu)  

Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2003 08:23:43 UTC