Re: Relative checkpoints

On Thu, 20 May 1999, Daniel Dardailler wrote:

  
  Charles wrote:
  
  > Relative priorities to be handled by splitting checkpoints into
  > multiple checkpoints each of single priority. This will apply to
  > checkpoints 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.6.1, 2.6.3, and is
  > expected to apply to the new checkpoints referring to accessibility
  > of the user interface
  
  some comments.
  
  
  2.3.1: [Priority 1]
       Prompt the author to provide alternative content (e.g., captions,
       descriptive video).
  
  Isn't this one a P1 no matter what, given that it refers specifically
  to a P1 in WCAG (checkpoint 1.1) ?
CMN:
titles for ABBR or ACRONYM are P3, but are alternatvie content. I guess we'd
better put suc things in the techniques to make it clear.

   
DD:  
   
  2.4.2: [Priority 1]
       Make generation of accessible content a naturally integrated part of
       the authoring process
    
  To the extend that it is "natural" to only integrate a P3 WCAG related
  item in a second level dialog, I guess this is not a relative one. Is
  that right ?
  
CMN:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. In any case, the logic you give for
the next one covers this one too.
  
DD:
  2.7.1: [Priority 1]
       Integrate accessible authoring practices in all applicable help topics.
  
  I guess by not making this one an R, we're saying Help must cover
  every aspect of WCAG, down to all the P3.
  
  In other words, we're saying Help is an enabling aspect of a tool, not 
  a promotional aspect (e.g. without Help on how to use abbrv on TH in
  table, people can't use it). 
  
CMN:
That's the current status.
  
  
  
  
  
  

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA

Received on Thursday, 20 May 1999 09:44:52 UTC