- From: Eric Hansen <ehansen7@hotmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:12:04 EDT
- To: charles@w3.org, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
I think that I agree with virutally all of what Charles has said. I certainly agree that the efforts to establish minimal requirements is extremely useful. I am merely suggesting how act upon what we are learning. My point about "padding" is that it is confusing to first say that failure to do 1.0 times Z will make access impossible and then come along and indicate that we can correct the accessibility gap by doing 0.7 times Z (i.e., the minimal requirement). It begs the question: "Why was 1.0 times Z required in the first place?" >From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org> >To: Eric Hansen <ehansen7@hotmail.com> >CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, ehansen@ets.org >Subject: Re: A Proposal To Not Establish "Minimal Requirements" >Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 01:44:09 -0400 (EDT) > >I am sympathetic to Eric's proposal, and in particular agree that where >possible the checkpoint itself should express the minimum requirement >clearly. However I disagree about the dfirection in which requirements are >being padded by establishing minima - what we are saying is that at >Priority >X, this is what need to be done, and in some cases we are providing further >information about how to solve this problem at priority X+1 or X+2. We >could >try to strip them down into seperate components, but there comes a opoint >when we have too many checkpoints. Since there is no magically right answer >to the question "where is that point?" we essentially ahve to make the >decision based on how easy it is to read the document and nderstand it. My >experience suggests that shorter is good, since people can remember the >requirements at the start when they get to the end, although in applying >those they may have to go into further detail, such as in teh techniques >document. > >SO I think the establishment of minima, where they are not clear from the >text of the checkpoint, is a valuable exsercise. It is also important as a >process towards demonstrating verifiability - if we can't dsscribe what >does >or does not meet the requirements, then the checkpoint is probably not, in >my >opinion, easily verified. > >cheers > >Charles McCN > >On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Eric Hansen wrote: > > Proposal > > I propose we do NOT establish "minimal requirements." This may seem like >a > radical proposal, but I will explain why I take this position. This memo > provides a rationale for this proposal and suggests other ways to >resolve > the reviewer's concerns. The memo also provides examples of the proposed > resolution; I would like to get feedback on this proposal before trying >to > "fix" more checkpoints. > > Characteristics of a Good Checkpoint > > I think that the checkpoints in the WAI guidelines documents should meet > several characteristics. The first three points have been discussed >before. > I'd like to propose a fourth point. > > 1. Comprehensibility. The meaning of the checkpoint should be clear. > 2. Feasibility. A checkpoint should be practical from a technical and > practical standpoint. > 3. Verifiability. One should be able to verify conformance. > 4. Minimalism. The checkpoint itself should express the minimal >requirement. > > I think that these characteristics are related and somewhat dependent on > each other. We might think of these four characteristics as different >facets > of a unitary concept that we might call "validity" of the checkpoints. >(A > unitary concept of "validity" is also found in the area of educational > testing.) > > Minimalism > > If the working group succeeds in clearly expressing minimum requirements > within the checkpoint itself, then there is no need for separate minimal > requirements. A checkpoint that is already minimalistic is not >susceptible > to further reduction (unless justified by new information). > > Pitfalls of Establishing Separate Minimums > > There would be several negative consequences to establishing minimal > requirements that are separate from the checkpoint statements >themselves. > > 1. Indication of Padding. To establish a minimal requirement that is > separate from the checkpoint statement itself may be seen as an >indication > that we have "padded" the checkpoints, i.e., made requirements that go > beyond what is justified by their actual impact on people with >disabilities. > 2. Confusion About the Number of Priority Levels. To divide or parse a > checkpoint (especially a Priority 1 checkpoint) into a "minimal" portion >and > "beyond minimal" portion would, in effect, add a new level of priority, > perhaps one that we might call Priority 0 (zero). By having separate >minimal > requirements, we would be saying, in effect: "Even though we rate this > checkpoint at Priority 1 (meaning that some disability group would find >it > "impossible" to access content if this were not followed), there is yet > another level of priority -- Priority 0, for which failure to conform >would > make content "REALLY impossible" to access." The non-sensical nature of >such > an implication would add confusion about the meaning of the priority >levels. > 3. Indication of Failure to Make Checkpoints Comprehensible, Feasible, >or > Verifiable. I think that since the four facets of comprehensibility, > feasibility, verifiability, and minimalism are related to each other, >then > failure to ensure that checkpoints statement themselves are minimalist >may > indicate that there are problems in the other characteristics as well. > > In summary, I think that, to the extent possible, we should make the >minimal > requirements obvious in the checkpoints themselves, at least to the >extend > possible, given the necessity for comprehensibility, feasibility, and > verifiability. > > Solution > > I think that the solution is to simply clarify the checkpoints >themselves as > necessary but not go down the slippery slope of providing minimal > requirements. If we want to add clarifications, advice, guidance, or >other > information beyond the checkpoint itself, that can be put in a note or >in > the techniques. In some cases, new checkpoints might need to be added. I > think that the "expected solutions" need to be treated this way as well. > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Received on Friday, 23 June 2000 09:12:39 UTC