- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 23:27:59 -0400
- To: thatch@us.ibm.com
- Cc: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
thatch@us.ibm.com wrote: > > I get the impression that you guys have been working so long on these > checkpoints without others interacting that when someone comes in and says, what > does that mean, you think, wow, she must be out in left field. You mean other people are meant to read this document??? <smirk> > Yes I am fully aware that the techniques document is not ready. But, darn it, we > are on the same side, so to speak, I know assistive technology, and I know the > web. The responses I have gotten have been like pontification. Quote This is the > way it is Endquote. I'm all ears! > On the subject checkpoint, the wording is not consistent with the glossary. I > believe that quote frame viewports endquote does not make sense. And the > checkpoint should not require reference to a glossary. If this is important, if > should stand on its own. That is true for other checkpoints I have asked about. I think we can rely on the glossary and may have to. Not all terms are used the same way, and having a definition that's internally consistent is important and perhaps the only way to ensure that the document as a whole stands up. Internal inconstency is a bad thing, however. > I believe that if I can't understand the points being made, then it is a problem > with the wording of the points. If I can't evaluate an agent against the > checkpoints/guidelines then there is a problem with the checkpoints. I agree! I haven't had a chance to review all of your comments yet, but I will soon. - Ian
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 1999 23:28:04 UTC