- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 22:06:37 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- cc: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
I would propose expanding the definition of 3.2.2 to include tools whose scope is wider than a single document. Given the explanation of scope in the intro to the guidelines I think this can best be made clear in the techniques, and would reinforce the idea that the scope of our deifinition of authoring tool needs to be considered, each kind of tool needs to be considered in teh context of the content it produces - be that image, page, site, database-backed intranet, etc. Charles On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Jan Richards wrote: Jan Richards wrote: > 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? As a reply to myself I propose a checkpoint for 3.3 (Provide accessible navigation) to expand this guideline to inter- as well as intra-document navigation: Ensure that all methods for navigating to and identifying documents for editing are accessible. Jan Richards jan.richards@utoronto.ca ATRC University of Toronto --Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +1 617 258 0992 http://www.w3.org/People/Charles W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI MIT/LCS - 545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139, USA
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 1999 22:06:41 UTC