W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 1999

RE: Checkpoint 10.3

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <po@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 15:40:13 -0500
To: "'Jason White'" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>, "GL - WAI Guidelines WG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000501be8e92$a7c61aa0$4b17fea9@gregg>
I would agree except for the firewall issue (people in companies are not
allowed to send their info outside the firewall for processing) and the fact
that it is very hard to get new code added to a server within a company.
They are VERY strict and slow on approving misc CGIs on their servers.  So
it makes server translators hard to use for corporate users.
Gregg



-- ------------------------------
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/
FAX 608/262-8848
For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@trace.wisc.edu

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]  On
Behalf Of Jason White
Sent:	Thursday, April 22, 1999 6:11 PM
To:	Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
Subject:	Checkpoint 10.3

Further to today's discussion of checkpoint 10.3, I would point out that
linearization can be carried out on the server side with an appropriate
script, provided that the pages are written in such a way that they can be
linearized and structural markup is used correctly (see the proposed
wording of checkpoint 5.3).

I would therefore argue that if checkpoint 10.3 is retained, it would not
place as much of a burden on web site developers as some would suggest.

I have noticed the debate within the interest group on this topic. Whereas
my personal view is that the "until" clause in 10.3 is largely satisfied
today, and that the requirement would be substantially met if
linearization tools were widely available for major graphical browsers, I
am concerned by the apparent controversy surrounding this point within the
interest group. It might be better to retain the checkpoint and to clarify
the situation in the techniques document.

In essence, while I would like to be able to delete 10.3 I would not be
comfortable in doing so.
Received on Saturday, 24 April 1999 16:42:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:59 GMT