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

Re: Comments on 8 December AUGL - PJ comments

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 23:57:13 -0500 (EST)
To: pjenkins@us.ibm.com
cc: w3C-wai-au@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.9912142355180.20803-100000@tux.w3.org>
In other words, are you arguing that the ambiguity in the present wording is
going to be beneficial to developers who are thinking about how to implement?

In actual fact, the more I think about it, the more I think that we should be
explicit about the requirement in the text of the checkpoint, since if it is
integrated in the "plumbing" but not in the User Interfce that could be sen
to have met the checkpoint while it completely fails to satisfy the actual
requirement.

Charles McCN

On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 pjenkins@us.ibm.com wrote:
  
  PJ I agree that it is not as important to the user how the tool is built,
  but how the user interface works.  But, since these guidelines are written
  to developers, it is important to write to developers who may at times
  think of the UI as separate from the supporting plumbing that supports the
  UI.  By using the term "user interfaces" the developer reading the document
  may not think of the required functions and features [functionalities is
  not a word in my dictionary] that also need to be implemented to comply
  with the checkpoint.
  
  Regards, Phill
  
  

--
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                    http://www.w3.org/WAI
21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011,  Australia (I've moved!)
Received on Tuesday, 14 December 1999 23:57:15 UTC

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