Re: Proposal for WCAG conformance mechanism.

Tom and Michael,

Thanks. This is an interesting proposal.

  You identified one issue:
>...there are known challenges (#1:
>is it really ok to make a normative requirement for a process, not a
>state?).

Are there other issues that you are aware of?

I like the idea of looking at the design process rather than just looking 
at the outcome.   However, I'm having a hard time imagining how we would 
implement it. So, help me out:
1. Do you think it should be a new guideline or success criterion or part 
of our conformance scheme or something else?
2. Would the "skeleton model of a QA process for technique development" be 
in the guidelines or in the techniques gateway or in technology-specifics 
or elsewhere? If in the guidelines, would it be a (using the current 
conformance scheme) level 1, level 2 or level 3 requirement?
3. Could you provide examples of statements that might be used to make a 
normative requirement for a process?
4. What are examples of statements that would be in a "skeleton model of a 
QA process for technique development?"
5. How would we test the process that we define to ensure that following it 
creates content that conforms to the success criteria?
6. Is a normative WCAG evaluation process the answer to the needs of 
authoring tool/development environment/cms developers trying to implement 
ATAG?
7. How would policy makers react to a normative evaluation process?
8. Previously, we've thought about creating decision trees instead of or in 
addition to technology-specifics checklists.  Is this proposal similar but 
not technology-specific?

Thanks,
--wendy

-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
/--

Received on Thursday, 18 March 2004 20:59:40 UTC