W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > October to December 2001

Fwd: Re: Need general consensus on Techniques edits before we publish

From: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:04:00 -0500
Message-Id: <a05100306b8400b8a4267@[142.150.64.191]>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
>From:	"David Senf" <dsenf@sympatico.ca>
>To:	"Jutta Treviranus" <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
>Subject: Re: Need general consensus on Techniques edits before we publish
>Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:02:04 -0500
>X-Priority: 3
>Status:  
>
>
>
>>  1. Which Icons:
>Jan's final icons.
>
><aside>However, given the massive "fuzziness" between the different types of
>tools, I think this sort of classification will prove to be quite a headache
>to manage.  For example, I could make a case for almost all techniques to
>fit into all 5 tool categories.</aside>
>
>>  2. alt-text,
>
>To the issue of auto generating alt-text placeholders - please don't.  See
>Scenario 3.
>
>Scenario 1: (T0176) no alt-text provided while authoring, invalid doc
>results, must go back and fix:
>-high likelihood of "asdfasdf" alt value
>
>Scenario 2:   auto generate alt-text, prompt author at end of session:
>-high likelihood of "asdfasdf" alt value
>
>Scenario 3: no alt no image (the Amaya way):
>-less likelihood of "asdfasdf" alt value throughout the entire doc.
>-satisfies 2.2 and 3.4
>
>>  3. 3.3 to > 1.4
>Conform with Wombat - also. hopefully 1.4 T080-T081 will make their way
>below 3.3 T0172-T0175.
>
>>  4. Conversion tools
>
>I agree (except as stated in above in question 1) with Charles' post.
>
>>  5. "required" terminology
>
>As opposed to reducing the impact of the terminology from "required" to
>"strongly recommended", why not append the definition of "required" with
>"...although there
>may be other ways of meeting the checkpoint that the working group has not
>considered" as Charles wrote.  If this change in terminology were to be
>applied only to the examples in the techniques doc, I would agree, but not
>to the techniques themselves.
>
>>  6. Should we add the priority/conformance section? See thread: "AU
>>  techs ad priorities and conformance"
>
>Quite redundant, but folks love consistency.
>
>  Let me know if this is what you are looking for.
>
>Regards,
>Dave Senf
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 15:04:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:46 UTC