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

Re: Reapproaching WCAG 2.0

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:52:36 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

	If it came to a vote, I would go with 4 Guidelines ... per William's site

	Linked to each guidelines, which could each have a long description, up to
seven checkpoints, and each checkpoint can have up to seven techniques, but
the opening number is nicer at four.... interoperability/attachments
(specific technologies), navigability, comprehensibility, and (whatever
I've overlooked!) ...

	Why? Perhaps because when you are lecturing, you can hold up four fingers
and still sip on your coffee ... !! 


At 08:39 AM 1/22/01 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>At 2:38 PM +0000 1/22/01, Sean B. Palmer wrote:
>>  > Unfortunately "useful discussion" requires presenting something real
>>>  concrete to act upon. "X proposes, Y disposes" is relevant to this thing.
>>To wit, I propose:-
>>Fold guidelines 1 and 2 into 4, so that the two guidelines are
>>"Interoperability", and "Comprehensibility".
>>i.e. All people should get pages no matter what their disability, and
>>understand them once they have them.
>Sean, I would say that you can fold even further and state as one
>guideline, 'all people should be able to use the Web'.  I think the
>thing to remember is that when are dividing down sub-guidelines, we
>are essentially drawing -arbitrary lines-, and when we do so, we
>should draw those based on what best allows us to communicate our
>intent to our audience.
>This is where the "around 7" rule comes in handy; I'd say that less
>than 7 guidelines (but around 7, so 4-6) with around 7 (or more,
>say, 7 to 9) checkpoints each would be a good granularity scale.
>Within that scale, it's just a matter of figuring out which arbitrary
>splitting of hairs is most conducive to getting our point across.
>I like Wendy's proposal -- what I've skimmed of it -- and I think is
>about the right granularity to be well-structured and easy to
>understand.  I think 2 guidelines isn't fine enough to be easily
>(As an example of this principle, I think that 'give alt text for
>everything' is too chunky, and 'give alt text for images' + 'give
>long descs for complex images' + 'give captions for multimedia' +
>'give transcripts for multimedia' is better, even though both
>formations say basically the same thing -- modulo, of course, the
>possibility that I forgot to list something. *grin*)
>Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
Received on Monday, 22 January 2001 18:52:19 UTC

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