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

5/21 draft

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 08:17:07 -0700
Message-ID: <374ABEF3.B56767E7@gorge.net>
To: au <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
2.2.2 If checkpoint grammars are to be paralleled this should start with
an active verb rather than a noun.

I wonder if for the checkpoints that are "priority-dependent" it is not
a priority 1 that they ensure "conformance at the appropriate level"
rather than having separate guidelines for each priority?

We are down to eight guidelines!!  They are tersely but clearly stated.
This is a VGT (very good thing).  Of the 43 checkpoints, many are
redundant because of the decision to have separate checkpoints for the
"priority-dependent" ones, so our count there is also reasonable.

When the original WCAG warranted Kynn's "aiee, it's huge" thread starter
we had reason to fear an off-putting of our audience and when we started
with AU guidelines we feared the developers would be prone to object to
all the imperatives presented - now we say "hey, there's only 8!"  

I think we must examine all these in regard to their specificity
relating to "save as" type functions - the very ones that potentially
cause the most problems.  If someone makes a tool with proper alerts,
etc. for the top-of-the-line html editor it would seem that they would
have in-house a library that could be incorporated into word processors
and other software that poses a threat to Web accessibility.  I hope the
managers of Office Suites will reconsider their reluctance to furnish
accessibility inclusions when they make publishing to the Web "too easy"
in terms of eroding access.
-- 
Love.
            ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 1999 11:16:31 UTC

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