W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: Agenda April 29th: Level 1 Success Criteria

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 10:04:59 -0500
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <auto-000021944805@spamarrest.com>

I think this was originally something like

1. Do not set limits on default presentation and contents;
That is, what the author expects to be presented to the majority of people
who view their content. 

But it still isn't clear whether we need this one or not.  Some are much in
favor of it but I wonder if it is covered by #2 or not.   It is sort of --
but not specifically......  


 -- ------------------------------ 
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 Charles McCathieNevile
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 9:12 AM
To: John M Slatin
Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Agenda April 29th: Level 1 Success Criteria

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, John M Slatin wrote:

>There's at least one problem with my proposed wording for the explnation of
Level 1 success criteria:
>I wrote:
>    1. Do not set limits on content or presentation;
>The problem is that it's incorrect: by requiring text equivalents for
>non-text elements we *are* making demands on content and presentation (alt
>text, captions, and longdescs all involve content, and they have to be
>presented somehow).
>I think we can delete this item and leave the remaining ones in place.
>Doing so might even have the benefit of making the difference between
>1 and 2 clearer.

This makes sense to me, but given that I am still guessing at what the
requirements will be I am not certain yet how to apply priorities...


Received on Thursday, 29 April 2004 11:05:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:49 UTC