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

Re: Please Vote: Process for new guidelines and rules

From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 14:12:15 -0400
Message-Id: <199905211816.OAA06694@smtp-gw.vma.verio.net>
To: "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>
I vote "Aye" -- but see my in-line comments!

Al, should we be voting on each of Len's four points -- or do you vote
"Nay" to the whole thing.
> Al's observation suggests the following process:
> 1. We only include in our recommendations checks that are presently in
> the guidelines or techniques document.

Okay, but I hope we all agree that unique links that are hidden by ALT=""
is a problem that IS covered by the WCAG 1.0!

I don't see a problem with breaking down a checkpoint (1.1 in particular)
into several sub-categories that can each be better analyzed.

> 2. If we have a suggestion for additional rules or guidance, we bring
> them to the attention of the author guidelines (AG) group.

Correct.  My suggestion that we consider not allowing ALT="" is not
something that is up for debate -- the point is "settled law".  Likewise,
the construct of ALT=" " is not up for debate either as it is explicitly
prohibited.  Both points are covered (Al, thanks for pointing this out) by:

I think that Al or Len or Daniel will do a fine job of sharing the job of
"parliamentarian" when someone (like me) suggests something that
incompatible with W3C published documents.

> 3. When AG puts it in the document, we then add it to our techniques doc.
> 4. Discussions about pros and cons of new guidelines/suggestions would
> take place in AG space.
> For starters
> All in favor email "Aye"
> All opposed email "Nay"
> If there are any "Nays" lets etalk about it.
> Len
Received on Friday, 21 May 1999 14:16:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:28 UTC