- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 02:11:19 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- cc: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Jan, thanks for the minutes. (I read them on my new WAP phone. makes for an interesting perspective - I haven't tried using it to author content yet, but hopefully I will be able to do that by te f2f in Bristol.) A couple more thoughts: It would be good to lok at the checkpoints and see which of them are sinple (i.e. there is one test to satisfy) and which are complex. For example, I think that 7.6 "Allow the Author to search within editing views" is simple - you just answer the question. 4.1 (and the other relative priority checkpoints), and 5.1 (ensure everything is part of the look and feel) are complex - you need to test mutliple things. But 1.1 is in between. For example, if you can edit source, you meet 1.1. If you can't then you need to test for a number of different things that you can do in HTML, or whatevber type of content the tool produces (this might be easiest for image editors where there isn't much that can be done). What I am wondering is how we determine what needs to be tested for a given type of tool. Maybe by describing it and seeing if we agree. Cheers Charles On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Jan Richards wrote: CMN's form controls JT: We like P1,P2,P3, Like pass fail, Like approach of rorganizng be elements, like filtering by different types of tools. JT: More volunteers: MM: Working on multimedia. MK: ACTION ITEM: Will take lists HS: ACTION ITEM: Save as HTML functionality questions. Adjourned -- Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053 Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001, Australia
Received on Thursday, 31 August 2000 02:13:28 UTC