W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2003

RE: Lists in normative section

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:42:26 -0600
To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au, "'Web Content Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <003a01c2c0a2$ea84ec90$ac17a8c0@TOSHIBATABLET>

Also, if this is a review, we need to say what should be reviewed.   It
can't be a review against a specific target or criteria or else it starts
becoming a success criteria. 

So we should be specific about the dimension and the direction and even what
is "usually the best".  But I don't think we should be specifying a specific
criteria.

 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Jason White
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 2:15 AM
To: Web Content Guidelines
Subject: RE: Lists in normative section


Lisa Seeman writes:
 > 
 > The further we go from definite requirements for the review, the less
 > seriously people will take them.
 > It is obvious but worth reminding everyone

I haven't seen any proposal to reduce the specificity of the
requirements for the review, but only to phrase them in such a way
that they are obviously different from the success criteria. If you
think any specificity is lost in this process, I am sure further work
can be done to fine-tune the relevant statements. However, I am
confident that Avi will be careful in drafting the next version to
ensure that the items to be reviewed are as specific as possible.
Received on Monday, 20 January 2003 11:42:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:21 GMT