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

Re: ATAG PR: improving RP definition

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:39:15 -0500 (EST)
To: dd@w3.org
cc: ibjacobs@panix.com, jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca, w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.9911011138540.6152-100000@tux.w3.org>
Sounds good to me...

Charles

On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Daniel Dardailler wrote:

  
  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.
  
  

--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 Monday, 1 November 1999 11:39:19 UTC

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