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

Re: Re-Organizing Guideline 2.7

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:07:18 -0400 (EDT)
To: "gregory j. rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
cc: Authoring Tools WG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9904211904230.16008-100000@tux.w3.org>
Some of what we require is already done by checkpoint 2.4.2 - Make generation
of accesible content a naturally integrated part of the authoring process,
which is P1 already.


On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, gregory j. rosmaita wrote:

  My proposal for the re-organization and re-prioritization of this
  Guideline is as follows: 
  1. take existing Checkpoint 2.7.2, renumber it Checkpoint 2.7.1, and make P1
  2. take existing Checkpoint 2.7.3, renumber it Checkpoint 2.7.2, and keep P1
  3. take existing Checkpoint 2.7.1, renumber it Checkpoint 2.7.3, and make P2
  4. retain Checkpoint 2.7.4 as is
  Why?  Simply because the current 2.7.2 is the crux of the entire effort... 
  If we are going to integrate accessibility features and practices into the
  overall look-and-feel of the tool, then we cannot, as GL 2.7 currently
  does, encourage authoring tool developers and manufacturers to simply
  provide documentation on the quote accessible authoring practices
  supported by the authoring tool unquote in one discrete location and hope
  that a) users of the tool read the help topic on accessibility, and b)
  that the developers will also quote integrate accessible authoring
  practices in all applicable help topics unquote.  What is needed is a
  clear statement that whenever an authoring practice/method is discussed,
  any and all applicable accessible authoring practices pertaining to that
  authoring practice/method _MUST_ also be discussed.  Hence the P1
  associated with my re-numbered 2.7.1 (the current 2.7.2)  Anything less
  would be tantamount to sweeping accessibility features/practices under the
  rug, which runs counter to the AU WG's mission.  If the goal is to
  incorporate accessible authoring practices/methods into the tool (as well
  as to make accessible authoring second nature to the user of the tool),
  then the current 2.7.2 is unequivocably a P1, and should be made the most
  visible checkpoint in GL 2.7 by re-numbering it as 2.7.1 and according it
  a P1.
                  Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
    Camera Obscura:           http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html
    VICUG NYC:          http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/index.html
    Read 'Em & Speak:   http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/books/index.html
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 1999 19:07:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:42 UTC