RE: What does WCAG mean by "a set of Web units"

   All the approaches have problems -- which is our problem.

Two problems with the conformance statement approach.

1- we don't require a conformance statement.  So if there is no conformance
claim then an evaluator has nothing to work from.  

2 - one could make conformance claims by page - in which case there are no
sets of page and all the consistency requirements go away.



Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jason White
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:16 PM
> To: WAI WCAG List
> Subject: Re: What does WCAG mean by "a set of Web units"
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 06:29:14PM -0700, Loretta Guarino Reid wrote:
>  
> > We started a discussion at the end of today's call about 
> what we mean, 
> > in these SC, by a set of Web units. Some of the ideas that were 
> > discussed included:
> > -	the web site
> Ambiguous, since the term is not well defined, with no 
> commonly agreed upon criteria with which to decide what is 
> included and what isn't.
> > -	the contents of the conformance statement
> This has the advantage of clarity. The conformance claim, 
> after all, must specify a set of Web units to which it 
> refers, and these could easily be taken as the "set of Web 
> units" for purposes of the relevant criteria. The result 
> would be that a separate conformance claim would have to be 
> given for each such set.
> > -	a set of Web units that is intended by its author to be used
> > together
> If it isn't clear to a potential evaluator from reading the 
> cofnormance claim and the Web content what the set is 
> supposed to contain, then the conformance can't be properly assessed.
> > -	all of the Web units within a site that can be reached from the
> > graph starting at some root Web unit.
> Subject to the same problem, as above, in defining what a 
> "site" is, i.e., how its limits are established.
> > 	
> > More thoughts or suggestions?
> I would prefer the set of Web units to be defined as 
> comprising all of the Web units within the scope of the 
> conformance claim. Thus, if the claim is made for an entire 
> "site" (whatever that means) then that's the set of Web 
> units; but if the author decides to make the claim with 
> respect to something smaller, for whatever reason, then 
> that's the set of Web units for purposes of the success criteria.
> 
> I would also maintain that the set of Web units can never be 
> larger than whatever is specified in the conformance claim as 
> lying in the scope of conformance. If the set of Web units 
> extends beyond the scope of the conformance claim, then the 
> problematic situation arises whereby the conformance of Web 
> units within the scope of conformance depends on the 
> conformance of Web units outside of it. Yet, the whole idea 
> of specifying the scope of a conformance claim is to 
> circumscribe the material which is subject to the guidelines.
> 
> Thus, if I make a claim that applies only to a single Web 
> unit, whether the claim is true should not depend on other 
> Web units to which mine is linked; the latter may well be 
> outside my control or subject to other constraints, which is 
> why they weren't included in the conformance claim in the first place.
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 18 August 2006 03:27:35 UTC