Re: My issue

I go along with Phill's modified version of Daniel's proposal.

(the long answer:

I do not agree that there is a difference in priority between the two
questions, but I think that is almost immaterial. We have created a priority
scheme, which means that ordering, while it will probably lead to differeing
first impressions, is not relevant to the priority of meeting checkpoints. I
prefer to have the current ordering, but I do not think the ordering change
proposed will be a big problem, and I would therefore rather have the
consensus, based on the fact that I don't anticipate any new issues arising
in the discussion.)

Charles McCN



On Wed, 25 Aug 1999 pjenkins@us.ibm.com wrote:

  
  
  I support/agree with Daniel's proposal to
  
  >My proposal is:
  >  - move guideline number 1 to the end of the list
  >
  >  - reorder the goals in "1.2 Checkpoint priorities" to be
  >    1.The authoring tool generates accessible content by default
  >    2.The authoring tool is user configurable
  >    3.The authoring tool encourages the creation of accessible content
  >    4.The authoring tool itself is accessible
  
  with one addition.  Remove Goal #2.  "Making the tool "user configurable" is a
  TECHNIQUE for achieving the other goals 1, 3, and 4.  It is also related to my
  issue already on the agenda about the "scope of configurability".
  
  >I would like the AU group to decide whether or not their priority is:
  >first "deliver accessible content to the Web per WCAG", and then "make
  >mainstream AU tools itself accessible", or the other way around.
  
  I believe the priority is to "first deliver accessible content to the Web per
  WCAG, and then "make
  mainstream AU tools itself accessible" - for many reasons including Daniel's:
  
  >Say you're a developer of html editor within a software
  >company. Either you care about accessibility of the UI, and you
  >already have a set of guidelines to comply with (from Microsoft or IBM
  >or Trace) or don't care (but still, you know that kind of guidelines
  >exist, but you just don't care).  Here comes this new set of W3C AU
  >guideline.  First thing you see by skimming thru it is that it's just
  >another set of UI Accessibility guidelines.
  >
  >In both cases (you already care or you don't) your reaction is to
  >ignore/postpone its use because you already have what you need
  >(something or nothing), and/or it's something you not doing at this
  >stage of development.
  >
  >Of course there will be people smart enought to understand the two
  >aspects, when I see how people get confused by much simpler things
  >when they first look at novel approaches, I'm _sure_ lots of people
  >will *never* understand that these guidelines are also (and
  >principally) about the generated markup, not just the UI: because this
  >is a novel set of guidelines.
  
  
  Regards,
  Phill Jenkins
  
  

--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 Wednesday, 25 August 1999 12:41:12 UTC