4.1and4.2Proposal.htm

In trying to address comments on 4.1 and 4.2 the editors came up with the
following (attached) proposal for re-organizing the success criteria of
these two guidelines.  

 

This proposal

 

 

1)       renames 4.1 to address the issue on the list regarding 4.1's
success criterion not matching 4.1 very well

2)       Moves the user-agent (including AT) compatibility/support issues
together in 4.1

3)       Leaves the differently focused 4.2 items (focused on "provide
accessible or provide alternate) in 4.2 

4)       It also moves "validating" and "use according to specification"
from "advisory techniques" to "sufficient techniques".  They go beyond what
is required but since they are supersets of what is required - if you did
them you would have met the success criterion on the way - so they are
deemed to be sufficient (and then some).     (this change is pasted at the
bottom of the attached page even though it would appear in the "HOW TO MEET
SC4.1.1" document (under 'sufficient techniques)"

 

We believe this is a better reorganization of material under 4.1.

This is posted for review in preparation for discussion Thursday.  A survey
will be posted tomorrow (oops -today now)(Wednesday)


Gregg

------------------------

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848  
For a list of our list discussions http://trace.wisc.edu/lists/

 <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>