Re: Dealing with relative priority checkpoints

I had better not say much about my relatives here, but with regards to the
proposal...

Actually I think this would provide a good way of reading the techniques in
terms of working out new techniques, or how to explain existing techniques
better. In terms of what is required for implementing a tool I don't know
whether either method is better or not.

cheers

Charles

On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Jan Richards wrote:

  Relatives are nice and all, but sometimes they can overstay their
  welcome. So it is with the ATAG Relative Priority Checkpoints.

  Attached is a proposal to kick them off the couch where they haven't
  been doing much (i.e. the main ATAG techniques list) and put them to
  work (in a new appendix, organized by WCAG checkpoint and better suited,
  I think, to the production of high quality relative priority
  techniques). This reserves the main techniques page for more general
  techniques that are not tied to a single WCAG checkpoint.

  Thoughts? A potential problem is that this may make generating the
  techniques draft from the source documents more complicated.

  Note: All the details of the proposal are only worked out down to WCAG
  1.5.

  Cheers,
  - Jan


  /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

  Jan Richards
  UI Design Specialist
  Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
  University of Toronto

  jan.richards@utoronto.ca
  Phone: (416) 946-7060
  Fax: (416) 971-2896

  /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)

Received on Monday, 11 February 2002 10:52:42 UTC