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

Re: Priority Definitions for Sections 2 and 3

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:32:48 -0400 (EDT)
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9904211930060.16008-100000@tux.w3.org>
This is the reason why I want to frame the definitions to make it clear that
there are significant barriers still in place unless P2s are done.

Among the things I think are important which we have not yet discussed is
getting double-A conformance to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. But
I am not sure if we can really make that a P1.


On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

  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.
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 1999 19:32:52 UTC

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