- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 22:41:06 -0500
- 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