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

Re: Moving Checkpoint 3.2 to Guideline 1 to Become New 1.4

From: Doyle <dburnett@sesa.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:33:41 -0800
To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B98FC295.2012%dburnett@sesa.org>
Greg -

Thanks for putting into words what it was we discussed at the most recent
teleconference.  I agree, fully, that 1.3 and 1.4 should be close to each
other as I was having a challenging time with them being somewhat
contradictory, myself.  I will take a look at 1.4 and see if I can come up
with any wording.  

-- 
Doyle Burnett
Education Specialist
Multiple Disabilities Program
907-562-7372

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Organization: Trace Center
Reply-To: gv@trace.wisc.edu
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:11:25 -0500
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Moving Checkpoint 3.2 to Guideline 1 to Become New 1.4
Resent-From: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:11:36 -0400 (EDT)


Moving Checkpoint 3.2 to Guideline 1 to Become New 1.4

 

               A suggestion that came from the teleconference was to take
Checkpoint 3.2 łEmphasize Structure Through Presentations, Positioning and
Labels˛ and move it up to become a new Checkpoint 1.4 (pushing the old 1.4
to become 1.5, etc.).

 

               This is suggested because it was felt that the purpose for
emphasizing the structure through presentation was to make it perceivable.
Making it more perceivable, of course, facilitates navigation,
understanding, orientation, etc.  The primary purposes for emphasizing it,
however, was so that the structure can be perceived independently from the
rest of the content.

 

               A second motivation for moving it up next to 1.3 is that the
two guidelines can be viewed as being contradictory if not read carefully.
By putting them immediately next to each other, it becomes clear that they
must work together.  It also makes it easier to look back and forth between
them to discern their separate and complimentary (rather than contradictory)
roles. 

 

               It was further suggested that 3.2 (now the new 1.4) be looked
at to see if a slight rewording of the Checkpoint might make its
complimentary role even clearer.  However, the group was not able to come up
with such a wording at the meeting.

 

               Comments are solicited.

 

 

 


Thanks. 

Gregg 

------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Ind Engr - Biomed - Trace, Univ of Wis
gv@trace.wisc.edu 

 
Received on Monday, 26 August 2002 15:37:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:19 GMT