- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 09:51:49 +1000
- To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Gregg Vanderheiden writes: > > > At the upcoming face to face we will be discussing the following topics > among others. We would like to ask people interested in these topics to > post comments to the list between now and then to help inform the > discussions at the meeting. Brief comments on some of the topics appear below. I won't be able to attend the meeting in person or by teleconference as it clashes with a conference in which I am involved. > > - conformance, scoping See my comments at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0676.html, which still apply. > - checklists (normative vs informative) In discussing this topic, Gregg distinguished between (1) techniques that are to be implemented in tools, and (2) techniques that can be used by authors and which work well without any implementation in software. There is a stronger ground for making items in the first category stable and for defining them precisely, with exact language, examples and test cases. This is where there may be a good argument for normativity at the technology-specific level, especially where the success criteria do not determine which techniques are used when they are applied to a given technology. I do not necessarily think the case for normativity is overwhelming, and it needs to be examined having regard to experience gained from the compilation of techniques documents. Of course, technologies for which we don't provide checklists wouldn't be covered in this way, i.e., none of the technology-specific requirements would be normative. The only solution I can think of here would be radically to change our approach to conformance, as follows: 1. Define the notion of a "content accessibility policy", which provides a complete checklist with all technology-specific requirements included, at the desired level of WCAG conformance. The policy might also include certain exceptions (scoping or otherwise) that are explicitly allowed to be made according to WCAG. 2. The policy, not the content, conforms to WCAG 2.0, i.e., to the high-level guidelines document. 3. Content conforms to the policy. 4. Sample policies would be published with WCAG 2.0 to cover a broad variety of requirements, but implementors would be free to write their own policies to cover situations or technologies that we haven't considered. Note that under this type of proposal, the content does not conform to WCAG, but rather to a policy which must itself be a correct interpretation of WCAG requirements down to the technology-specific level. > - checklists form and format Either as questions or as assertions that can be "checked off" as true or false. Where different alternatives for satisfying a success criterion are offered, these must be made absolutely clear in the checklist. There should be an XForms model for each checklist which verifies whether it has been completed correctly. > links to techniqes/gateway > other issues from bugzilla > numbering success criteria > - planning and next steps >
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2004 20:08:01 UTC