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

Re: Problems with OTACS-2

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 08:10:36 -0700
Message-Id: <a05100308b8007e64f4d0@[209.162.37.184]>
To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, Graham Oliver <graham_oliver@yahoo.com>, gian@stanleymilford.com.au
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 2:22 PM -0400 2001/10/26, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>This is a good question.  I think this is how I see it:
>1. the CHECKPOINTS describe how to make content accessible for 
>people with disabilities
>2. the PRIORITIES help the content provider determine where to start.

You are correct except for one word.  This is more accurate:

"the PRIORITIES help the content provider determine where to STOP."

This is a true and accurate statement of how WCAG 1.0 priority levels are
used, and it is a danger to increased accessibility -- and therefore
I feel it is a problem we _must_ correct in WCAG 2.0.

>Every checkpoint should help make content more accessible.  Ideally 
>a content provider would conform to all of them.  However, a list of 
>ten is easier for the content provider to swallow than a list of 21. 
>We don't want to overwhelm them or they won't do anything.

This isn't necessarily true.  21 is not necessarily "too many."  It
all depends on organization and presentation.

--Kynn

-- 
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
Technical Developer Liaison
Reef North America
Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network
________________________________________
BUSINESS IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL.
________________________________________
http://www.reef.com
Received on Saturday, 27 October 2001 12:11:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:16 GMT