- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 08:47:42 -0600
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QAWG -- This is some background about LC-80. I was the Originator of LC-80. It was based on something that recalled from a WAI GL document. So far, I can't find where I saw it. Nor does Ian remember exactly... >Subject: Re: WAI guidelines question from QAWG >From: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org> >To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com> >Cc: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, > Jon + Tracy + Palmer + Catherine Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>, > ij@w3.org >Organization: W3C >X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4 >Date: 01 Jun 2003 21:21:10 -0400 >X-RCPT-TO: <lofton@rockynet.com> > >Hi Lofton, > >The UAWG may have gone down that path at some point. I recall >a model where the claimant could use common sense to exclude >inapplicable checkpoints. But I looked back as far as March >2000 and even in that draft, there was a finite list of >scenarios where you could claim inapplicability. > >My sense is that if you leave the decision in the hands >of the claimant, it becomes difficult to compare claims >and especially to have a standard measure for conformance. > >Sorry I can't be of more help, > > - Ian > >On Sun, 2003-06-01 at 21:01, Lofton Henderson wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I wonder if one of you can help me with this question. > > > > At some point in the past, I remember seeing something in one of the WAI > > specifications. I can't find it now in any of the most recent published > > versions (WCAG20, UAAG10, ATAG20). Perhaps it was in an older version and > > it was removed or changed. > > > > The topic: when one is making a conformance claim or filling out a > > checklist, what does one do if one thinks that the checkpoint does not or > > should not apply, but the checkpoint does not indicate any conditionality > > on applicability? (I'm not thinking here of the well-defined > applicability > > exclusion model of Rec UAAG10, but perhaps what I am remembering was an > > early precursor of it.) > > > > What I remember seeing was a specification of how one stated one's belief > > about non-applicability, even though (as I recall) doing so did not change > > the conformance requirement. I.e., one is not relieved of the > > responsibility to conform to the CP in order to achieve the given > > conformance level, but one is given the opportunity to say why the CP > > should not apply. > > > > Does this sound familiar to anyone? > > > > Thanks, > > -Lofton. >-- >Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs >Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Monday, 2 June 2003 10:47:12 UTC