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

4.1 revised -- more

From: Avi Arditti <aardit@voa.gov>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:02:07 -0400
Message-ID: <3DB7003F.46069C8F@voa.gov>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
CC: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>, Lee Roberts <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>

To go on: The "stick" part would come into play once the checklist is
completed.  At that point, the answers on that checklist are subject to
testing for accuracy. 

Obviously if the content is clearly gobbledygook, but the answers on the
checklist all "yes," the tester would have grounds to seek
clarification. This is where the flexibility comes in. 

Those responsible might argue that their intended audience (say, people
targeted for financial scams) would find 150-word sentences and
incomprehensible jargon perfectly reasonable. Yet their answers to their
checklist will speak for themselves, for all to see and scorn.

Call this a passive-aggressive approach, but I think to be much more
prescriptive or militant might turn some people off from even trying.


Avi Arditti wrote:

> This approach offers a pragmatic (though no doubt imperfect)
> measure of testability without restricting creativity. We are not saying
> that anyone has to implement any of the items. All we are saying is that
> they have to assess their content according to these criteria and
> discuss reasons for any exceptions. The hope, obviously, is that they
> will see the wisdom in ideas that might never even have come to mind. So
> perhaps it's more carrot than stick.
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2002 16:02:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:42 UTC