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

Re: Abbreviations at Level 2 (was Re: Moving forwards)

From: Andi Snow-Weaver <andisnow@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 15:57:36 -0600
To: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFB9935C28.3CD96564-ON862570AF.0077DD0F-862570AF.0078A177@us.ibm.com>


You wrote:
A recurring argument against any proposal for a success criterion that
is beneficial to people with cognitive problems is that the success
criterion may be detrimental to websites that are aimed at

and then later clarified:

It was mentioned in the teleconference once yesterday, in one of the
surveys [1] four times (1.3 L3 SC2 and 1.3 L3 SC3), and references
were made at the face to face meeting; one with regards to error
correction slowing down professionals. I'm not sure of the number of
times that the same point is made in different contexts towards the
same group before it could be considered recurring, but I felt it was
appropriate in this case.
<end of your comments>

I believe those comments about professional users were made with regard to
Web applications that are deployed in an enterprise and used by trained
professionals. The rationale was that they know their domain and will
understand the abbreviations.

Part of what we struggle with in trying to reach consensus is that we all
have different environments that we represent. The stated working group
criteria for having something at Level 1 and 2 is that it should be
applicable to all types of Web sites. If someone comes from an environment
for which a requirement is largely not applicable, they will naturally
argue to keep it at Level 3.

IBM Accessibility Center
(512) 838-9903, http://www.ibm.com/able
Internal Tie Line 678-9903, http://w3.austin.ibm.com/~snsinfo
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 21:57:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:57 UTC