- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:42:44 +1100
- To: gv@trace.wisc.edu
- Cc: "'Wendy A Chisholm'" <wendy@w3.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Gregg Vanderheiden writes: > > That works ok for the techniques doc, but for the checklists we need > checklist items. > > There may be 3 or 5 techniques for a success criteria. To meet the > criteria you would not need to do all 5. but you may have to do one of > them. Or two of them. Or some combination or another. I suppose it depends on how you encode them and whether you are referring to the source file (the XML document from which the techniques are generated) or the output documents - techniques documents and checklists. For example: <and successcriterion="id"><technique><statement>[statement of first technique]</statement> [other required/optional elements]</technique> <technique><statement> [statement of second technique]</statement> [other required/optional elements] </technique></and> which means that in order to meet the success criterion you have to implement both of the techniques; the checklist item would be generated by extracting the contents of the two STATEMENT elements, inserting "and" between them and supplying appropriate styling to make the layout clear in the final presentation. As a result, there are checklist items in the generated checklists but no checklist items in the XML source. That is, the checklist items are generated from the techniques during the output processing. A disjunction might be written: <or successcriterion="id"><exception>there are no <code>IMG</code> elements in the document</exception> <technique><statement>every <code>IMG</code> element in the document has a non-null <code>ALT</code> attribute that provides a text equivalent for the image.</statement> [other details and examples of ALT attributes] </technique></or> The above element names are meant to be self-explanatory and easy to understand for purposes of this e-mail message; I am not proposing them for inclusion in a schema. That is, if you don't like my choice of element names, please don't interpret them as a serious, well considered proposal. I think it is an open question whether we want to mark up the techniques in this or a similar manner. There may be advantages for purposes of testing tools, test suites and so forth, and it wouldn't mean much extra work for the technique author. Returning to Gregg's point, in the generated checklists there will be checklist items composed of one or more techniques; in the source XML there may not be checklist items depending on how we decide to mark up the techniques. I close with the observation that it is usually better to capture more semantics in the XML vocabulary in that it increases the flexibility with which the data can be transformed and used. On the other hand it does create somewhat more work in developing the output transformations. Extending the above ideas one can envisage: <or successcriterion="id"><and> [technique 1] [technique 2]</and> [technique 3] </or> Trnaslation: to meet this success criterion you have to implement either technique 1 and technique 2, or technique 3.
Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2003 03:02:47 UTC