RE: Instruction and Assessment

I can see what you are saying about the difference in priority. Here is
another way to handle this that I think makes more overall sense...

Change checkpoint 6.1, which is P1 to encompass "all features of implemented
specifications", including accessibility features.

New:

"6.1 Implement the features of all implemented specifications (markup
languages, style sheet languages, metadata languages, graphics formats,
etc.). This includes accessibility features of a specification, which are
those identified as such and those that satisfy all of the requirements of
the "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [WCAG10]. [Priority 1]"

Old (26 January 2001):

"6.1 Implement the accessibility features of all implemented specifications
(markup languages, style sheet languages, metadata languages, graphics
formats, etc.). The accessibility features of a specification are those
identified as such and those that satisfy all of the requirements of the
"Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [WCAG10]. [Priority 1]"

The advantage of this is that it makes guideline 6 cover everything about
conformance to specifications and guideline 2 cover display of content
through the user interface.

To carry things a bit further, I would recommend considering a reordering of
the guidelines.

GL 1 (old GL 6) - Ensure conformance to specifications
GL 2 (old GL 2) - Display content through the user interface
GL 3 (old GL 1) - Support input and output device independence
GL 4 (old GL 3)
GL 5 (old GL 4)
GL 6 (old GL 5)
GL 7 (same)
GL 8 (same)
GL 9 (same)
GL 10 (same)

I think that the reordering is sensible because it puts guideline 6 up front
where it belongs. It seems to me that we are placing greater reliance on the
checkpoints in guideline 6 that ever before and it is time to give it the
prominence that it deserves.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 12:54 PM
> To: Hansen, Eric
> Cc: 'Jon Gunderson '; 'UA List (E-mail) '
> Subject: Re: Instruction and Assessment
> 
> 
> "Hansen, Eric" wrote:
> > 
> > And if so, why do we really need to say it at all, since 
> conformance to
> > specifications is an assumption underlying the whole document?
> 
> The difference is priority: 6.2 is P2.
>  
> > If this is the case, then the first sentence of checkpoint 
> 2.1 could be
> > deleted.
> > 
> > In that case, we would have the following:
> > 
> > New:
> > 
> > "2.1 Provide a view (e.g., a document source view) of the 
> text portions of
> > content. This is only required for formats defined by 
> specifications that
> > the user agent implements. [Priority 1]"
> > Old (26 January 2001):
> > 
> > Old:
> > 
> > "2.1 Make all content available through the user interface. 
> As part of
> > meeting this requirement, provide a view (e.g., a document 
> source view) of
> > the text portions of content. This is only required for 
> formats defined by
> > specifications that the user agent implements. [Priority 1]"
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > EH:
> > 
> > Here is a revision of the checkpoint that pertains to 
> content produced by
> > the user agent.
> > 
> > New:
> > 
> > "1.3 Ensure that every message (e.g., prompt, alert, 
> notification, etc.)
> > that is a non-text element and is part of the user agent 
> user interface has
> > AN AVAILABLE text equivalent. [Priority 1]"
> > 
> > Old (26 January 2001):
> > 
> > "1.3 Ensure that every message (e.g., prompt, alert, 
> notification, etc.)
> > that is a non-text element and is part of the user agent 
> user interface has
> > a text equivalent. [Priority 1]"
> > 
> > Comment on revised checkpoint 1.3. This change makes 
> explicit that the text
> > equivalent must be available to the user.
> 
> I agree with this, though I am not sure it adds significantly to the
> checkpoint.
> 
>  _ Ian
> 
> -- 
> Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
> Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
>

Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2001 13:30:41 UTC