W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > September 1998

Re: The E part of ER

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 14:40:45 +0200
Message-Id: <199809111240.OAA19329@www47.inria.fr>
To: "David Clark" <dmclark@cast.org>
cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org

> 1. Is it appropriate to have a yes/no accessibility rating? (IMHO that is
> what mainstream webmasters are looking for)

yes

> 2. If so, what constitutes a "pass"?
> a. simply no priority 1 errors

yes

> b. No priority 1 errors and fewer than xx priority 2 errors

should be were "stars" come into play: simple pass , pass with 1 star, 
pass with 3 start.

> c. Fewer than xx priority errors

we need to use the priotiry

> 3. Do we rate accessibility per page or per site? What is site? Are
> alternative pages ok?

we should have both: individual accessibility of pages and accessible
zone or site.

It should be up to the webmaster to define what is his or her site.

For instance, I could decide that the WAI site is accessible,
althought the W3C site isn't.

> 4. When pages are served differently depending on  browser, to all browser
> possibilities have to be accessible.

We should discourage browser sniffing and encourage the one source
approach, so I'd say no.
Received on Friday, 11 September 1998 08:40:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:31 GMT