- From: Chuck Letourneau <cpl@starlingweb.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 13:40:46 -0400
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
While I can see what Daniel is getting at, I think his suggestion for different ratings for guidelines and techniques unnecessarily complicates a document we are trying to simplify. I.M.H.O., the existing priority definitions hold well enough in either context. Chuck At 04/09/98 12:36 PM -0500, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: >Daniel Wrote > >I think the priority wording should be different than for Guidelines. > >In fact, it is confusing to use the same term (Priority) as for the >guidelines. > >I'd prefer if we use [1st Choice] or [Preferred] [Advised]. > > >GV: The priorities for the techniques are used in the guidelines document. >In fact the rating for the guidelines and the rating for the techniques are >tied together. So the two are directly related. It would be very >confusing to have two different ratings in the same doc. Also, I think it >is the techniques where the ratings are most important… since it is there >that the authors will evaluate their pages and decide what is important to >do or not… or whether their pages pass or not. > >So we think they need to be the same. In fact we think it is important that >they be the same. > >Your thoughts? Others thoughts? > > >-- ------------------------------ >Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. >Professor - Human Factors >Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis. >Director - Trace R & D Center >Gv@trace.wisc.edu, <http://trace.wisc.edu/>http://trace.wisc.edu/ >FAX 608/262-8848 >For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@trace.wisc.edu > ----------- Page Author Guidelines Working Group cpl@starlingweb.com (613) 820-2272
Received on Friday, 4 September 1998 13:39:59 UTC