W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: RE: working definition of baseline

From: Neil Soiffer <NeilS@DesSci.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 11:09:25 -0700
Message-ID: <008701c55654$91424c50$6601a8c0@raindrops>
To: "'Web Content Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "'Jason White'" <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
To: "'Web Content Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: RE: working definition of baseline


>
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 03:10:53PM -0500, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> > Good point Michael,
> Agreed.
> >
> > But i think that it should also not be constrained to 'claims'.
Baselines
> > are good for evaluation even when you don't make a claim.
> >
> > So - how do we write it without evaluation or claim.
> >
>
> <propose>
> Any minimum set of technologies assumed to be supported by, and enabled
> in, user agents in order for Web content to conform to these guidelines.
> </propose>
>

I've been silent on these discussion both for lack of expertise and lack of
time.   I have been trying to follow the discussion/proposals and this is
the one I like the best.  It is short and still conforms to my intuitive
notion of what "baseline" should mean.

I think that at the beginning of the baseline discussion back in March,
someone said that there would be an informative document on how to choose a
baseline, and I hope that is still planned.   The baseline choosen is
critical and most authors will not know about implications of technology
choices and user agent support for them.  Guideline that give general advice
and pointers on how to find out more is essential for the success of the
recommendation.

    Neil
Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2005 18:09:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:37 UTC