Re: Don't require <Q>

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

-- 
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