- From: gregory j. rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:28:56 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
- cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
aloha, kynn! it is clear to me, as well, that we need to re-define our priorities (somehow, that doesn't sound quite right, but i'll let it slide), but i am not sure that having 2 or 3 sets of priorities in a single document is the solution... there is clearly a need for an explicit statement of the criteria you enumerated, but having one set of priorities for Section 1 and another for Section 2 is to risk confusing anyone attempting to use the GL as it is intended--as a checklist and a quick reference document... that being said, i do like your definitions, although at the risk of invoking bill's wrath, i would suggest replacing the shorter (and, somewhat pejorative) word "naive" with the compound word, "non-technical" although i suppose since our target audience is developers, no naive user will ever know that we consider him or her "naive" (note that i personally don't have a beef with calling them "naive" users, but users tend to be touchy about such things) i suppose that what we are really grappling with is a philosophical issue: to wit, does the fact that each section quote measure[s] different things unquote warrant re-defining -- or, rather, drafting -- discrete priority criteria for each section, as you have done, or should we attempt to make the priorities more elastic... either route, at this point, seems to me, at least, to be a dilution of the concept of what constitutes a priority, and yet, there is much to your argument that, since each section addresses a different issue, each section warrants its own definition of what a priority means vis a vis that section... do others share my concerns, or am i just blowing hot air? would having 3 sets of priorities dilute the Guidelines, or would it clarify and re-emphasize the import of each section? what would be the ramification of a ratings system/conformance statement that rolled 3 different priority criteria into one blanket conformance claim (to use the WCGL's terminology) gregory. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net> Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html VICUG NYC: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/index.html Read 'Em & Speak: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/books/index.html ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 1999 17:50:03 UTC