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

Re: Priority Definitions for Sections 2 and 3

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 16:17:27 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990421161727.03abe310@mail.idyllmtn.com>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
At 06:21 p.m. 04/21/99 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>There is an issue here.

I know.

>It is my personal feeling that conformance which only covers all P1
>checkpoints is absolutely minimal - what one expects of the most reluctant
>and obstreporous of  developers, and that meeting priority 2 checkpoints is
>required to make a tool which is reasonably accessible.

Yes, except what I can tell from developers is that you won't
necessarily get what you want here.  If you want people to do
a certain level of compliance you have to DEMAND it instead of
giving them a lower priority -- they WILL do the P1 stuff before
the P2 stuff and there's a good chance they won't do P2.

Are we defining minimum acceptability or are we saying what we want?
I _want_ lots of things that are P2, so perhaps we need a definition
to make them P1's too -- if we won't be happy with simply P1 performance.


--
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@hwg.org>
President, Governing Board Member
HTML Writers Guild <URL:http://www.hwg.org>
Director, Accessible Web Authoring Resources and Education Center
  <URL:http://aware.hwg.org/>
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 1999 19:26:41 UTC

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