

RE: Proposal for 3.4 Success Criteria

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 08:28:32 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Cc: "'Joel Sanda'" <joels@ecollege.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "'Kynn Bartlett '" <kynn@reef.com>, "'Matt May '" <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>, "'Wendy A Chisholm '" <wendy@w3.org>
At 10:17 AM 8/4/2001 , Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>I'm working on the success criterion for the guidelines.

What's the difference between these success criteria, and a
conformance plan?

This looks very similar to something I proposed back in September,
which basically was a conformance scheme.

The main points were:

(1) Compliance with _all_ checkpoints is a requirement.
(2) Each checkpoint has compliance requirements (technology-
(3) Each specific technique was listed as "fully compliant",
     "minimally compliant", or "partially compliant" (this
     technique complies if you also do <x> <y> and <z>).

The proposal was basically a strawman to generate discussion (I am
not sure I fully agree with it, or even did back then), but I think
that our "success criteria" discussion is very tied in with any
future "compliance scheme" we will create, and we also need to
address the question of how the "technology-specific" model of
techniques fits in with our "success criteria."


Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
Technical Developer Liaison
Reef North America
Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network
Tel +1 949-567-7006
Received on Sunday, 5 August 2001 11:29:12 GMT
