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 16:14:10 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990421161410.03abe850@mail.idyllmtn.com>
To: "gregory j. rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
Cc: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>, w3c-wai-au@w3.org
At 05:28 p.m. 04/21/99 -0400, gregory j. rosmaita wrote:
>it is clear to me, as well, that we need to re-define our priorities
>(somehow, that doesn't sound quite right, but i'll let it slide), but i am
>not sure that having 2 or 3 sets of priorities in a single document is the
>solution...  there is clearly a need for an explicit statement of the
>criteria you enumerated, but having one set of priorities for Section 1
>and another for Section 2 is to risk confusing anyone attempting to use
>the GL as it is intended--as a checklist and a quick reference document... 

Disagreed.  The two parts of the guidelines do completely different
things -- one measures how well the tool functions to create 
accessible content, and the other measures whether or not people
with disabilities can use the tool.

This means that any one set of definitions is going to be compound
ANYWAY.  I suggest that clarity is enhanced by setting a general set
of 'what priorities mean' at the start, and then 'how they apply to
this section' per section.  Otherwise we run into headaches!

--
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 19:26:43 GMT

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