W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 1998

RE: Techniques Document

From: Chuck Letourneau <cpl@starlingweb.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 13:40:46 -0400
Message-Id: <199809041740.NAA02872@host.ott.igs.net>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
While I can see what Daniel is getting at, I think his suggestion for
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.


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
>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
(613) 820-2272
Received on Friday, 4 September 1998 13:39:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:27 UTC