W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > June 1999

Re: Guideline 1 in The evaluation techniques document

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:31:56 +0200
Message-Id: <199906250731.JAA00522@www4.inria.fr>
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
cc: "Bruce Bailey" <bbailey@clark.net>, w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org

> On the terms of reference of "the current debate" I wonder if you have
> drawn such a fine line that you actually managed to miss the mark.  I
> believe that the document Chris is maintaining is supposed to serve as a
> common reference; both for tools which check existing HTML and for checking
> which is performed seamlessly as one creates new material in an authoring
> tool.  Even that can be either by writing HTML text or by triggering
> generation of HTML text.  In that sense, the debate is not about what the
> generator "starts with," but rather what the checks accept, IIRC.
> 
> Chris, Daniel: can you clarify this?

The list was started as a mean to specify techniques for auto or
semi-automatic evaluation of checkpoints (as used by Bobby).

Chris came in with the additional requirements that we look at
suggested checkpoint repair techniques during the authoring process
(for A-prompt).

I think it's fine to treat both kind of issues at the same time, as
long as we separate them in different section in the resulting
document.
Received on Friday, 25 June 1999 03:32:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:33 GMT