- From: Liddy Nevile <Liddy.Nevile@motile.net>
- Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 09:02:37 +1100
- To: W3C WAI-AU <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Jan I agree with most of these but... > > >1.2 Role of authoring tools in Web accessibility >-While "Web Resources" makes sense the "Web Content" guidelines do still >apply to those services, etc. where we are referring to the WCAG we need to say content but I still think we need to move into working more openly and explicitly on all content - the word content does not nec. achieve this, unfortunately. >1.3 How this document is organized >-I'm confused about the meaning of the first comment "I think the >integration you want..." ??? >Checkpoint 2.1: >- For Success Criteria 1., "accessible" should not be there. >- Why "relevant" over "appropriate"? Relevant is probably harder to >define. I think that relevant means that there is something that relates to it whereas appropriate means if you think you want to use it - or something... >GUIDELINE 3: INTRO TEXT: >-"ideosyncratically" seems awkward here. yes - I was struggling to find a word that would do - I was thinking of unpredictably - perhaps... - or not anticipated >Checkpoints 3.1/3.2/3.3/3.4: >- I am still looking for feedback on my discussion about collapsing >these into a new, more general checkpoint (see >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2002OctDec/0020.html) >- Not sure about "implore" in 3.4. >- Do you have a definition for "Reasonable Author" and "Moderately >Expert"? beg?? invite is a bit gentle but might be OK Liddy
Received on Thursday, 7 November 2002 17:02:54 UTC