RE: Issue 435: Proposal to address non-normative nature of checkp oint groupings

Looks good to me.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 5:37 PM
> To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
> Subject: Issue 435: Proposal to address non-normative nature of
> checkpoint groupings
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> When we discussed issue 435 [1], a question arose about the normative
> status of the "checkpoint group labels". There are four such labels in
> our document:
> 
>  - Checkpoints for content accessibility
>  - Checkpoints for user interface accessibility
>  - Checkpoints for communication with other software
>  - Checkpoints for accessible documentation
> 
> These labels were initially included in the document for
> organizational purposes only, to address issue 121 [2]. However, they
> have since become "normative." The following statement in section 3.4
> of the 26 Jan 2001 Guidelines [3] ties the labels to conformance:
> 
>    "Each checkpoint requirement must be satisfied by making
>    information or functionalities available through the user interface
>    of the subject of the claim unless the checkpoint explicitly states
>    that the requirement must be met by making information available
>    through an application programming interface (API). These API
>    checkpoints are labeled "checkpoints for communication with other
>    software."
> 
> The problem is that it's no so clear cut. Some checkpoints include
> some requirements that aren't labeled "for communication with other
> software" but don't involve the user interface at all (e.g., the
> documentation requirements of Guideline 10).
> 
> One might think that ideally, each checkpoint should be sufficient to
> stand on its own, so this type of general statement would not be
> necessary. But some checkpoints depend on the requirements made by
> other checkpoints in order to be complete. For example, every time we
> say "allow configuration", we don't say "allow configuration through
> an accessible user interface that may be operated through the
> keyboard" because checkpoint 1.1 ensures that the UI must be operable
> through the keyboard.
> 
> I think we need to replace the paragraph in question with one that:
> 
>  a) Makes clear that the groupings aren't normative at all
>  b) Makes clear that requirements related to user interaction must
>     be satisfied through the user interface. This may be
>     "self-evident", but I don't think it hurts to remind people,
>     notably for some cases where they may not have thought of it.
> 
> Proposed replacement paragraph:
> 
> <NEW>
>   "The user agent must satisfy all requirements involving user
>   interaction (both user input and output to the user) through the
>   user interface.  This includes requirements that directly refer to
>   to user control, configuration, etc. but also requirements that
>   indirectly involve the user interface (e.g., system conventions
>   pertaining to the user interface). The following checkpoint grouping
>   labels are not normative and are for organizational purposes only:
> 
>     - Checkpoints for content accessibility
>     - Checkpoints for user interface accessibility
>     - Checkpoints for communication with other software
>     - Checkpoints for accessible documentation"
> </NEW>
> 
>  - Ian
> 
> [1] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#435
> [2] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#121
> [3] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010126/#claim-validation
> 
> -- 
> Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
> Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
>

Received on Friday, 23 February 2001 17:40:45 UTC