W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Don't require <Q>

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 13:02:12 -0800
Message-Id: <>
To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>
Cc: "'Web Content Accessibility Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "'Wendy A Chisholm'" <wendy@w3.org>, "'Leonard R. Kasday'" <kasday@acm.org>
At 12:37 PM 1/16/2001 , Bailey, Bruce wrote:
>It was actually this checkpoint that made decide to settle for Single-A
>compliance.  Kynn would be pleased to know that missing AA didn't scare me
>off most of the other P2 and P3 items.

I am pleased, although I daresay that you (as an active member
of the Web Accessibility Initiative and other such projects) are
far from an average test case.

Question to consider:  If we didn't have the artificial divide
of priority 1, priority 2, and priority 3 -- and instead tried to,
I dunno, urge compliance based on common sense -- how many more
checkpoints would there have been included in Section 508 guidelines?

It's my estimation that a "priority 2" checkpoint means a far less
greater chance of someone doing it than priority 1, and giving
something a priority 3 checkpoint is pretty much a death wish for
that checkpoint.  (Interpretation by insiders, such as Bruce, who
understand WCAG on a deeper level than average will of course produce
atypical results.)


Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                http://kynn.com/
Technical Developer Relations, Reef           http://www.reef.com/
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet   http://idyllmtn.com/
Contributor, Special Ed. Using XHTML     http://kynn.com/+seuxhtml
Unofficial Section 508 Checklist       http://kynn.com/+section508
Received on Tuesday, 16 January 2001 16:01:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:36 UTC