Outcome/method structure

[alastc]

We are narrowing down to an approach for structuring methods under each outcome.

We have recently been working through the image-alternatives document, the latest version is in the text-alternatives document.

We also have a newer (rougher) draft of the focus-indicator outcome.

NB: The documents are very big, but it's mostly examples and archive material. The areas for review are at the top of each document and there is highlighted text to indicate the end of the review.

There is a slightly different structure under each, which has come from the different types of requirements that they include.

• Text-alternatives is narrowing the scenarios is a tree-structure with branches and sub-branches. The tests for each are the same, but the methods to achieve "equivalence" in each scenario are different.
• Focus-indicators is a flatter structure, with some requirements for all indicators, but then separating into a flat list of indicator types. I.e. If your indicator uses a bounding box, that has a method which will have a particular set of tests/requirements within the method.

Assuming that each method has a certain amount of informative content within it, are we happy with the overall structure (including minor differences of how the 'tree' works). Is that a reasonable way to select methods that you need to conform using?

Other questions we need to tackle are:

• How are overall conformance levels determined? If so, are they assigned at the outcome, method or test levels?
• What content is normative?
• Where do user needs fit in?
• Are outcomes, methods, and tests additive (AND) or comparable (OR)?
• Where do assertions fit in?

If you have editorial or specific points on the text, please make those in the documents. If you have a general point about the approach, please leave a comment underneath.