Re: Proposed removing redundant checkpoint

At 11:41 AM 6/7/99 -0400, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>Hello,
>
>In the 31 March document [1], checkpoint 4.1.1 reads:
>
>       Ensure that the software may be installed in a 
>       device-independent manner using any supported input 
>       and output devices. 
>
>And checkpoint 4.2.1 reads
>
>       Ensure that all functionalities offered by the user 
>       agent interface are available through all supported 
>       input devices. These include the installation
>       procedure, access to documentation, and software 
>       configuration. 
>
>The only reason 4.2.1 doesn't entirely subsume
>4.1.1 is that 4.1.1 refers to output devices (covered
>partially by 4.2.2). I propose deleting 4.1.1.
>

At the checkpoint level, I think it is better to separate installation from
repeat use.  You can have a common guideline about all user actions
required to install, use and maintain... (check EITAAC report for sample
language and cite at least in draft) <http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/eitaac/>.

In the dominant pattern of commercial practice the installer is a separate
program, not one of the functions of the program.  This colors public
perceptions, and we should talk in publicly-understood concepts where we can.

This was a point where at least one vendor spokesperson drew a line: making
a distinction between repeat use where access support was obvious to them
and install transactions which are a "one time thing" and were perceived as
less meritorious of the necessary investment.  If we wish overcome that
perception, we will have to spell it out in two checks; not throw a blanket
over them.

Al


> - Ian
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-USERAGENT-19990331 
>-- 
>Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>Tel/Fax:                     (212) 684-1814
> 

Received on Tuesday, 8 June 1999 08:38:52 UTC