W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > February 2002

Re: Discussion: How to weight different accessibility warnings?

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:54:17 -0500 (EST)
To: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
cc: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0202111151270.12747-100000@tux.w3.org>
Nick had written:
  > >I've now used five levels:
  > > - Certain: we know this violates a guideline; no human check required.
  > > - High: A construct that is likely to be wrong, but we're not certain.
  > > - Medium: We can't tell; human checking required
  > > - Low: Something that's probably OK, but should be flagged for checking.
  > > - "-": Messages that definitely don't mean there's a problem.
  >
  On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Al Gilman wrote:
  > This last needs better definition. Why is there any event thrown?
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Nick Kew wrote:

  There was a very specific reason: pseudo-legalistic completeness in
  implementing Section508.  The two messages that carry this weighting are:
    (1) A message in every document, saying "provide a text-only alternative
        if this fails to meet the criteria".
    (2) A message re clientside imagemaps, noting that valid HTML is
        sufficient to meet the guideline.  Since Page Valet is a validator,
        no additional message is required for this section.

CMN:
Isn't there a notApplicable property in EARL?
Received on Monday, 11 February 2002 11:55:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:40 GMT