RE: Please review: Updated draft of conformance section for next draft

• From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
• Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:57:59 -0500
• To: "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <B3DC65CD2AA7EF449E554548C6FE1111135665@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>

I assume the following is a typo (this occurs in both <dd> items
defining core and extended checkpoints).
"Best Practice items to do not need to be met..."
Explanation of extended checkpoints is difficult to understand.
Item #1. 
Current wording: "No conformance claim of any kind may be made..."
Proposal: Change to positive statement: "In order to make a valid
conformance claim for a Web resource, the resource must satisfy all
required success criteria for all Core checkpoints."  Or "A Web resource
must satisfy all required success criteria for all core checkpoints in
order for a conformance claim to be valid."
Rationale: the negative form of the current wording is difficult to
parse (e.g., for non-native speakers and possibly for people with
reading difficulties).
Item #2
Current wording: "If all ... Then a claim ..."
Proposed: "A conformance claim of "WCAG 2.0 Core" can be made if all
required success criteria for all core checkpoints have been met."
Rationale: To improve readability by simplifying the syntax.
Item #3: Same as #2.
Item #4: Ditto.
Finally, it's not clear who the audience for the remarks under "Sites
that conform to WCAG 1.0" is.  Reads like an internal note to WG
members, or like the hwole thing is a reviewer's note...
Hope this helps.
John
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Institute for Technology & Learning
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web https://www.ital.utexas.edu
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Wendy A Chisholm [mailto:wendy@w3.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 9:34 am
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Please review: Updated draft of conformance section for next
draft
Hello,
At last week's meeting, I took an action to update the draft conformance
section based on discussion.  It is attached.
Major changes:
1. added "Best Practice items to do not need to be met to claim
conformance 
to a Checkpoint." to explanations of Core and Extended.
2. added summary of issues with Core+ to bullet 4 of "Conformance
Claims"
--wendy
-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
https://www.w3.org/WAI/
/-- 

Received on Thursday, 12 June 2003 15:58:06 UTC