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

Re: Definition of "applicability"

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 22:41:06 -0500
Message-ID: <384498D2.19AC3599@w3.org>
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
CC: w3c-wai-au@w3.org, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> 
> At 06:24 PM 11/30/1999 , Ian Jacobs wrote:
> >Per my action assigned 30 November at the ATAG teleconf, here is
> >a definition of "applicability" that is short.
> >It differs from the UAGL definition (as of the last
> >call draft) in that it relies on common sense, not a series of
> >specific cases of non-applicability.
> 
> I was pondering this week whether we could identify "applicability
> groups" -- in the sense that the WCAG's checkpoints seem to be
> organized along a "And if you use <X>..." basis.  Perhaps this
> concept could be useful for Authoring Tools, e.g.:
> 
> And if your tool allows for WYSIWYG editing...
> And if your tool provides templates...
> 
> Would this even be possible?  It works for WCAG because you can
> divide HTML into distinct groupings of elements and attributes --
> frames, imagemaps, etc.  Can we define functionality categories
> for Authoring Tools in a parallel manner, or am I just nuts today?

Nuts.

It's really really hard to predefine categories. We've been
down that road for UAs and it was abandoned.

 - Ian


-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Tuesday, 30 November 1999 22:41:34 UTC

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