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

RE: Tabling section 3

From: Charles Oppermann <chuckop@MICROSOFT.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:54:52 -0800
Message-ID: <BB61526CDE70D2119D0F00805FBECA2F072E3A91@RED-MSG-55>
To: WAI AU Guidelines <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
<<
It is my feeling that the time has come for the group to pay more
attention than it has done in the last ten weeks to the second of its
stated obligations.
>>

So you feel that the last 10 weeks have produced a stable section 2 and now
it's time to work on section 3?

If so, I couldn't disagree more.  Section 2 is by no means complete, stable
or even useful yet.  All the big issues of generated content have not been
discussed in depth, for example:

Prompting for ALT text
Requiring <label>
ALT vs. TITLE on <AREA>
Use of style sheets
NOFRAMES and NOSCRIPT

Sure, there are checkpoints pre-written and in the document, but are they
being reviewed, discussed and prioritized?  No, we're spending all our time
on UI issues.

Once again, the big picture is being missed in favor of the 5% case.  This
is not to say that the accessibility of the UI isn't important - it is -
it's just that the generated content is MORE important.  Let's get that
sorted out first.

I'm beginning to feel that there is a huge gap between what I'm expecting
from this WG and what is being produced.  It appears that Charles feels that
the major issues are resolve and now it's time to deal with some of the more
minor issues.  It's my perception that the major issues are in no way
resolved.

Charles Oppermann
Program Manager, Microsoft Accessibility and Disabilities Group
http://www.microsoft.com/enable/

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charles@w3.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 11:13 AM
To: WAI AU Guidelines
Subject: Tabling section 3


I am strongly against the group adopting this as a firm principle, despite
the fact that it describes what has been done in the last 10 weeks.

I think that there are relationships between elements of section 3 and
section 2 which mean we can better refine each section in the context of
the other.

I do not feel that we should split the work of the group into producing
two separate documents, unless we are planning to produce a complete set
of guidelines for section 3, rather than refer in many cases to other
documents. The group has not considered that as a sensible policy, I think
quite rightly.

It is my feeling that the time has come for the group to pay more
attention than it has done in the last ten weeks to the second of its
stated obligations.

Thoughts everyone...?

Charles McCN

  I propose that the working group completely table section 3 until section
2
  is completed.  Let's solve the problems for the 95% case and then deal
with
  the problems in the 5% case.
  
  Charles Oppermann
  Program Manager, Microsoft Accessibility and Disabilities Group
  http://www.microsoft.com/enable/
  

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 1999 14:55:04 GMT

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