W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: The Order of Checkpoint Priorities

From: Matt May <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 11:53:03 -0800
Message-ID: <00e501c1987e$29811070$ab00000a@vaio>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Geoff Deering" <gdeering@acslink.net.au>
> If we are trying to present these checkpoints in a manor for people to
> and develop their web skills and knowledge, isn't this a more logical

I don't think so. As a member of the target audience (well, _a_ target
audience), I see the relative importance of text and media equivalents
diminished. I would also be put off by having one of the harder-to-condense
checkpoints (the term "data model" itself, if I remember it, was the subject
of quite a bit of discussion) leading off, given that it may lead people to
the first impression that the group's attempt to simplify has failed. I'd go
so far as to say that the current 1.1 says to people, if you do nothing
else, add textual equivalents, and in the grand scheme of things, that has
provided the most direct benefit of the original guidelines. Primacy is

> Doesn't it also give some guidelines on how to construct and order your
> approach to web development in a methodical manner?  This may not seem
> the place to discuss web project strategies, but I feel this is what this
> addressing regardless.  And it needs to be presented in a way that web
> developers can take and apply to projects.  It makes more sense as
> methodology or guidelines one can implement within projects.

I also disagree with this. I think the guidelines should document the steps
to accessibility in a way that lets others apply them to their own
practices. For that matter, I've suggested before that someone (knowing full
well that "someone" tends to be a euphemism for "myself and anyone on the
list who agrees" <grin>) write a guide for doing such a thing. But I think
it's very important that the guidelines and checkpoints themselves are
protected against becoming or appearing to be too process-specific.

Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2002 14:54:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:40 UTC