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

Re: Suggestions

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@tux.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 17:39:09 -0500 (EST)
To: WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9812051723270.2403-100000@tux.w3.org>
I have annotated some of these directly as well.

Look for EH:: and CMcCN::

Charles McCatieNevile 

On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, eric hansen wrote:
> Item-2. An Automated Tool
CMcCN:: As Daniel said, bobby is such a tool.
EH:: 
> Item-3. Represent Material to Support Diverse Queries or
> Compilations
> Item-4. Only the Guideline Statements Should Be Normative 
CMcCN:: These have both been discussed on the list and in teleconferences.
I believe that we are currently thinking the only guidelines should be
normative, and that everyone agrees that being able to recast the
guidelines is a Good Thing (TM) but the latter increases the amount of
reworking required to update the document. As it is currently a working
draft, I think we should settle the guidelines seperately to discussing
the structure we provide to allow re-presentation, but that we should be
having both discussions.
EH::
> Item-7. Most Documents Will Mix Normative and Non-normative 
> Information
> Item-8. The WAIGL-PA Represents a Mix of Normative and Non-
> normative Components
CMcCN:: This is true, and is a strong argument for some structure which
allows multiple presentations.
EH::
> Item-14. Make Guidelines One Sentence Long
CMcCN:: I Strongly disagree as noted in  my last email.
EH::
> Item-16. Why Refer to Issues Not Addressed?
[excerpt]
> Crystal Waters in her book "Universal Web Design" says,
> "This book aims to show you how to find a balance among
> elements that takes advantage of the technology, serves your
> viewers, and doesn't sacrifice design quality" (p. 8). 
> 
> Item-17. Priority-Levels
CMcCN:: As I see it the priority levels are essential. The reason for not
making them normative is that they may change over time. However deciding
that they can be shifted to take commercial pressures etc into account is
not a decision which has anything to do with producing accessible content
- it is a decision about the commercial/technical/practical feasability of
a particular project and a weighing of the various arguments about having
to provide accessibility. The scope  of the document is to tell people
what needs to be done to achieve accessible content.
EH:: 
> Item-21. Absence of Tactile Communication
CMcCN:: True. This is the problem with listing the people  who will be
affected - we will never have an accurate list in a document of workable
size. It may be worth referring to another informative document which
could be referred from each of the Guidelines documents (and anything
else). It may not be necessary. I don't know.
Received on Saturday, 5 December 1998 17:39:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:58 GMT