W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: Priorities still needed...

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 14:38:00 -0400
Message-ID: <37138F08.D88D6B4@utoronto.ca>
To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
You are right about 3.1 covering the issue of other suite tools
generally, but I don't think 3.2 covers it because that guideline is
more focussed towards flexibility of content presentation. A authoring
tool site map is not really content in the way we have defined it.

I think the intro to 3 should mention that these guidelines apply to all
tools in the suite, then 3.4.2 should be placed as a technique in 3.1.

General musing: the difference between (1) an authoring tool site map,
(2) a site map placed as content in a document and (3) site displays by
browser-OS hybrids could get very fuzzy depending on implementation
details. Should we explicitly mention that all methods for navigating to
and accessing documents for editing must be accessible? 

Charles wrote:
> I think the issue is covered generally by guideline 3.1, and that the
> specific issue of not relying on a given presentational method is covered
> in 3.2. 
> So I favour it becoming a technique in one of those, preferably 3.2

> On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Jan Richards wrote:
> > If anything, this checkpoint should be a technique under a new
> > checkpoint that addresses the need for access awareness in all the tools
> > in a design suite.

> > Charles wrote:  
> > > 3.4.2 P2
> > > I don't believe the last is a technique if it gets worded properly as we
> > > discussed somewhere.

Jan Richards
jan.richards@utoronto.ca
ATRC
University of Toronto
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 1999 14:40:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:52:54 GMT