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

RE: RE numbering proposal

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:49:03 -0600
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <001301c2ede3$a1dc6590$a14efea9@TOSHIBATABLET>

We decided to not use A, AA, AAA in WCAG 2.0 because 2.0 is structured in a
completely different way and  level 1 2 and 3 don't mean the same thing as
A, AA, and AAA.   So it would be confusing.  

But if we ignore that detail - and just think of it as being 3 levels of
increasing accessibility.   Interesting to consider. 

But then don't you end up with a number scheme that looks like

N1AAA2    ??


 
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 Jonathan Chetwynd
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:34 PM
To: Matt May
Cc: gv@trace.wisc.edu; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: RE numbering proposal


Gregg,

as if I need to spell it out, I agree with Matt, and would prefer, one 
English word such as Navigation to be included as a topic marker
Presumably this word could be translated for localisation

AAA is clearer than 1,2 ,3 in my opinion as AAA is clearly the best, 
whereas 1 and 3 are arguable.....similarly with A and C

thanks

Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2003 01:49:07 GMT

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