W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: F2F documents up to now

From: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:42:59 -0400
Message-Id: <a0602040cbd19a4ded61e@[]>
To: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

This is not the success criteria it is the introductory text of the 
technique. Prompting and checking and repair are separated out 
because prompting should occur before there is a problem and checking 
and repair happen after there is a problem.


  At 9:21 AM -0400 7/13/04, Tim Boland wrote:
>Thanks for doing this!  Good job.  A few comments/questions:
>Optimize according to what metrics?   Can author have input 
>to/control the optimitization process?  How would one measure 
>At 11:27 AM 7/12/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>>Here is the rewording:
>>Optimize the timing of prompting, checking, and repair functions. 
>>Authoring accessible documents should be as efficient as possible.
>Why are "prompting" and "checking and repair" separated out in 
>following sentence?
>>  Prompting, should be timed so that accessibility problems are 
>>prevented whenever possible and, when not possible, checking and 
>>repair should occur when the accessibility problem is easily 
>"easily" may not be objective.  Is the following sentence a "rationale"?
>>  Integrated guidance in creating accessible content from the 
>>beginning of the workflow will avert the need for more disruptive 
>>checking and repair later in the workflow.
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 11:36:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:49 UTC