- From: <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:39:59 -0600
- To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Eric, I understand that "nominal" is an obscure term, but we went from "no prior" to "nominal" to your "a basic knowledge". Perhaps this phrase would capture the intent of "nominal" ... and that he or she has little knowledge of accessibility I think we really are assuming that the author has "almost none", or "very little if any" knowledge on accessibility. I don't even think we are assuming that the author is motivated to do accessibility, but that it will happen because of the checkpoints and because of the priorities. If we were to use the term "a basic knowledge of accessibility", I could argue that some of the priorities could be lowered - which very few of the working group wanted to re-open. I also feel that the term "no prior" is a little too absolute, because most authors are aware that people have disabilities, assistive technologies such as wheel chairs exist, and that laws exist such as the ADA in the US. Also, if we go with "no prior knowledge", some may argue that some priorities may need to be increased. Regards, Phill Jenkins,
Received on Friday, 10 December 1999 15:50:12 UTC