- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 21:24:38 -0400
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- CC: WAI AU Guidelines <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > We still need priorities on 2.7.3 and 2.7.4, and all of section 3 > My personal proposals are as follows: > > collapse 2.7.1 and 2.7.2, as per Bruce's proposal earlier today JR: Disagree. See other email. > 2.7.3 P1 > 2.7.4 P3 > 3.1.1 P1 > 3.1.2 P1 JR: Agree > 3.2.1 P1 > 3.2.2 P1 JR: Agree (Technique Idea: maybe we should mention that a textual equivalent need not be screen text) > 3.3.1 P2 > 3.3.2 P2 JR: Hmmm..is it practically possible to edit a very complicated page without this? There may be an argument for P1. > 3.4.1 P1 > I propose that this checkpoint be moved into section 3.2 JR: Not convinced. > 3.4.2 Technique > I think this is really a technique for scheckpoint 3.2.2 JR: I think that Checkpoint 3.4.2 is not a checkpoint. It is a technique for 3.1. That is if a site map is provided it should be done in a way that is accessible. One of ehich is a text representation. -- Jan Richards jan.richards@utoronto.ca ATRC University of Toronto
Received on Thursday, 8 April 1999 21:26:11 UTC