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

RE: Numbering Success Criteria

From: Gian Sampson-Wild \(PurpleTop\) <gian@purpletop.com.au>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:42:59 +1100
To: "Marja-Riitta Koivunen" <marja@w3.org>, "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <HJEEKOJFMDHPHFGMJEMAAEKMCBAA.gian@purpletop.com.au>

I think something that explicitly includes the levels is also a good idea.
I think option 4 is good but I think we are going to confuse people with
using a, b and c, instead of a, aa, and aaa. I know screen-readers have
problems differentiating between a, aa and aaa, so I think 1.1.Level.1 is a
good idea.

Gian

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Marja-Riitta Koivunen
Sent: Tuesday, 10 December 2002 7:43 AM
To: Wendy A Chisholm; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Numbering Success Criteria



I'm still not convinced we want to do the levels for each checkpoint and if
all levels exists for all checkpoints (e.g. can some checkpoints have no
level 1?).

But if you want to number them why not just use 1.1.level1 or
1.1.level2.1  or shorter 1.1.l1 and 1.1.l2.1? Or something else that spells
out what the parts of the number are.

Marja
Received on Monday, 9 December 2002 18:38:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:20 GMT