W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: Organization of techniques document

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 19:23:50 -0500 (EST)
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
cc: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>, w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0003081920350.6787-100000@tux.w3.org>
What we can gain is the ability to have a level of abstraction that makes the
guidelines applicable to a broad range of tools (by comparison to WCAG/UUAG
which are relatively heavily focussed on HTML in a desktop environment)

At any level, the details of how to satisfy the requirements for a particular
technology are going to be much more fluid than the requirements themselves.
However, providing techniques that will satisfy the checkpoints (or an
identified subset of them for a given technique) without being the only
possible satisfaction seems valuable.

Charles McCN

On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Ian Jacobs wrote:

  I don't like the idea of sub-checkpoints. If you know what you
  want specifically for conformance, create a checkpoint for it. If you
  don't really know what you want, leave the checkpoint vague and clarify
  in the techniques document. The ATAG 1.0 has few checkpoints and they
  are high level. If more concrete checkpoints are required, add them as
  first-class checkpoints. 
  If a checkpoint is so high level as to not be useful, make it a
  If possible, I would like all the guidelines to use the same model:
  guidelines/checkpoints/techniques. I don't know what a level
  of subcheckpoints adds. It may confuse readers further.
Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2000 19:26:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:44 UTC