Regrets for this morning

Sorry, but I'll have to miss the call this morning (again).
John

John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Institute for Technology & Learning
University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station G9600
FAC 248C
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: Ben Caldwell [mailto:caldwell@trace.wisc.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 7:24 am
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: [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 09:30:56 UTC