- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 23:55:20 -0400 (EDT)
- To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- cc: au <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
I think we should have the link text which explains that the priorities are
defined in terms of their importance to meeting those goals, just to make the
thing a bit more readiable. The rest of it i think we can live without.
Charles McCN
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, William Loughborough wrote:
1.3 Checkpoint priorities
[Editors' note: These definitions are to be further refined]
There are three goals:
The authoring tool is accessible
Authors will create accessible content
The tool will encourage creation of accessible content
[Priority 1]
Essential to meeting those goals
[Priority 2]
Important to meeting those goals
[Priority 3]
Beneficial to meeting those goals
I don't think these *GOALS* need any "further refinement" or laborious
definition. It is often claimed that we never "define" accessible but
since it is an operational thing, a "proper" definition might emerge in
the mind of a thoughtful guideline reader without some tortuous
explanation. Accessible means almost all authors can use the tool and
almost all surfers can glean info from the output of the authoring tool.
It doesn't mean the output will be useful to people who cannot read or
understand the "content" but it does mean Helen Keller could probably
find a recipe for chocolate chip cookies and possibly even put up a page
attempting to explain what "water" meant to her.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com
--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 Tuesday, 15 June 1999 23:55:22 UTC