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

Re: please review and comment

From: Hansen, Eric <ehansen@ets.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:40:21 -0500
To: "'w3c-wai-au@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-id: <A12997152E36D31187A4000077893CFB01209215@rosnt46.ets.org>
Some thoughts:

1. The word nominal is obscure.
2. It needs to make sure the reader knows that the working group already did
the determining. It is not their  "choice".
3. The reference to "documentation" seems out of place because it has
unnecessary and it is not immediately clear why it is there. On examination
one realizes that it is refering to the level of author expertise in the
authoring tool (not in accessibility).

Old (10 Dec 1999 draft):

"In choosing priority levels for checkpoints, the Working Group has assumed
that "the author" is a competent, but not necessarily expert, user of the
authoring tool, and that the author has no prior knowledge of accessibility.
For example, the author is not expected to have read all of the
documentation but is expected to know how to turn to the documentation for
assistance."
New Suggestion:
"In determining priority levels for checkpoints, the working group assumed
that "author" is a competent, but not necessarily expert, user of the
authoring tool, and that he or she has a basic knowledge of accessibility."
Received on Friday, 10 December 1999 14:45:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:52:56 GMT