- From: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:49:48 +0100
- To: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org, ERT WG <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Hi Loretta et al., (cc to ERT WG because this came up during an ERT F2F meeting) Loretta Guarino Reid schrieb: > On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:59 AM, WCAG 2.0 Comment Form <nobody@w3.org> wrote: > >> >> Name: Johannes Koch >> Email: johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de >> Affiliation: Fraunhofer FIT >> Document: TD >> Item Number: (none selected) >> Part of Item: Description >> Comment Type: general comment >> Summary of Issue: Group common failures as well as (good) techniques >> Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change): >> I wondered why the common failures in the techniques document are not >> grouped as the (good) techniques are. They could be FG for general failures, >> FH for HTML/XHTML failures, etc. >> >> Proposed Change: >> Maybe rename the failures, or, at least, group them according to >> technology. >> >> ================================ > Response from the Working Group > ================================ > > The working group felt it was important to raise the visibility of all > failures. In particular, authors need to be aware of general failures as > well as failures specific to the technology they are using. So all failures > are listed together. > > However, we will consider including information that more clearly associates > failures with the technologies they relate to in future versions of the > Techniques document. I'm fine with the WG's answer (and so is at least the majority of ERT WG regulars :-). -- Johannes Koch Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology FIT Web Compliance Center Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany Phone: +49-2241-142628 Fax: +49-2241-142065
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2008 13:50:39 UTC