W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > October to December 2000

Re: Raw minutes of 14 December 2000 UAAG WG teleconference

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 17:35:47 -0500
Message-Id: <200012142241.RAA739817@smtp1.mail.iamworld.net>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
At 04:14 PM 2000-12-14 -0500, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>>
>2.Issue #406: Checkpoint 4.18: Lower to Priority 3
><http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#406>http://
server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#406
>
>JG Summarizing: The point of the reviewer is that if the user
>can navigate back, then just an annoyance.
>
>Resolved:
>  - Due to orientation issue, this should remain a P2.
>

AG::

Good.

An furthermore...

[In writing up the response to the commenter, you may find this line of
reasoning worth including.  Use or forget it ad_lib.]

In the presence of certain classes of AT the impact could be as low as a P3
equivalent, but the presence of this AT cannot be assumed in rating the
checkpoint.  OK?

Note that one has to assume the presence of AT in order to say that the
detrimental effect is only at a P3 level.  That is not an appropriate
assumption for the purposes of placing a priority on the checkpoint.  Although
the conformance mechanisms allow any constellation of products to be included
as the subject of the claim, the checkpoints are rated first and foremost on
the premise that the subject is a mainstream, mass-market product.

Sorry, we don't have the priority-and-conformance language capability to get
more subtle than that.  See also the nacent "UA capabilities" thread in the
content guidelines work.
Received on Thursday, 14 December 2000 17:35:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:22 GMT