- From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 14:40:45 +0200
- 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 UTC