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

RE: Fw: Checkpoint 3.3

From: Wendy A Chisholm <chisholm@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 11:49:16 -0500
Message-Id: <199907211654.LAA125586@mail1.doit.wisc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
The Guidelines document was written to be as general as possible to cover
the principles of accessible design across tehcnologies.  We put the
implementation details in the Techniques document.  The working group also
wanted the guidelines to be as timeless as possible.  Thus, we mention
specific technologies only in checkpoint examples and explain which
technology we are referring to specifically (HTML, e.g.).  

however, since the techniques document is meant to clarify each checkpoint
for a variety of languages, it is organized by technology (HTML, CSS, ...)
and within each technological chapter organized appropriate to that
technology.  Thus the HTML chapter is organized similar to the HTML4 spec.  

The checklist of checkpoints is organized similar to the techniques doc -
we've grouped checkpoints that are related to similar types of structure
and use. 

Thus, you will find that 11.1 is included in the "General" category.  I
propose that if you would like to reorganize a document according to
technologies, then you start with the checklist, and then the techniques
document.

In other words, I don't think reorganizing the checkpoints as you've
suggested is the best proposal.  I think something along the lines of
Judy's proposal is more appropriate.

I also want to highlight something Judy said, 11.1 applies to many of the
checkpoints and therefore moving it into a guideline that is more specific
would break other checkpoints.  
--wendy

At 06:13 AM 7/21/99 , you wrote:
>How does every one feel, if we were to make a separate checkpoint section
>for all CSS relaed items?  We could even put check point 11.1 as the lead
>checkpoint for this CSS.  That way, "Use W3C technologies when they are
>available and appropriate for a task and use the latest versions when
>supported" is up front and if someone chooses not to use CSS then this whole
>section becomes "Not applicable". 
>
>Thanks to Judy for pointing out Checkpoint 11.1 <smile>.
>
>my difficulty now is if i am rating a site's conformance or if some one is
>rating this for me, then we really have to dig and causes extra work.  We
>need to streamline the review process as I am sure other people besides me
>would appreciate this!
>
>I think we can look at this from a usability focus.  Basically CSS is all
>over and rightly so, but does it make sense to centralize this?
>
>rob
> 
Received on Wednesday, 21 July 1999 12:54:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:00 GMT