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

ATAG PR: improving RP definition

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 16:58:59 +0100
Message-Id: <199911011559.QAA21729@www47.inria.fr>
To: charles@w3.org, ibjacobs@panix.com, jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca
cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

The example introducing [Relative Priority] is good, but it's kind of
wordy and without a better structuring, hard to swallow.

I suggest (make in two bullets and get rid of some unimportant
rationale/solution to make it shorter).

New text:

For example:
 - Providing text equivalents for images and audio is a priority 1
requirement in [WAI-WEBCONTENT] therefore, it is a priority 1
requirement for the authoring tool to check for (4.1) or ask the
author for (3.1) equivalent alternatives for these types of content.
 - Expansion of abbreviations and acronyms with ABBR and ACRONYM
elements is a priority 3 in [WAI-WEBCONTENT], therefore, it is only
priority 3 for the authoring tool to check for (4.1) or ask the author
for (3.2) this information.

-- End new text

In the above: "priority 1" and "priority 3" are in strong and
"therefore" in <em> to make the binding clear.

I also suggest moving the definition itself (It is priority 1 to...)
before the example, right after [Relative Priority], to use the
example as explanatory material after the important stuff has been
told.
Received on Monday, 1 November 1999 10:58:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:43 UTC