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

Re: Agenda

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 21:11:30 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
cc: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0109252106380.29854-100000@tux.w3.org>
Regrets. Very brief thoughts on agenda items below.

  6. Implementation
  (Should difficulty in implementation affect priority.)

CMN: No

  9. Access for absolutely all?    - If not, how to draw line
  (one suggestion was  "BEST EFFORT")

CMN: If we have no techniques or success criteria then we have no checkpoint,
and therefore we have not worked out how to solve problem XYZ. So we'll work
on it.

  10. Guidelines for all sites vs. special sites

CMN: We are having enough trouble doing general guidelines and working out
what is required. When we get there we should think about what are the next
required steps.

  12. Accessibility vs. usability

CMN: If we have some kind of concept that says "thisis is essential, this is
is imprtant, this is helpful" then we need not worry about whether it is
accessibility or usability, just about the impact for users with
disabilities.

  13. Conformance - why do it? How to test?

To be a W3C specification it is imortant to know if what has been done is
what is specified. We should be able to provide success criteria that can be
tested for each of the requirements for conformance.

  14. Author and user needs conflict

cmn: We describe what need to be done for users to get access to content. We
shouldn't describe things that are helpful as necessary, or specify a method
when we mean a problem.

  15. User and user needs conflict

CMN: If these arise we need to work out how to solve them. Until then, this
is a red herring.
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2001 21:11:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:14 GMT