- From: Liddy Nevile <Liddy.Nevile@motile.net>
- Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:49:22 +1100
- To: W3C WAI-AU <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
At 6:01 PM -0500 2002/11/07, Jan Richards wrote: > >> >1.2 Role of authoring tools in Web accessibility >> >-While "Web Resources" makes sense the "Web Content" guidelines do still > > >apply to those services, etc. > >Agreed - let's talk about this on the next call. good idea > >Your full comment was: >"I think the integration you want is achieved by having this >introduction. When people are trying to implement the guidelines, I >think it helps a lot if they can work on bits - so I am not sure there >is the problem you have suggested." >...I'm just not sure to what it refers. not important !!! > > >Checkpoint 2.1: >> >- For Success Criteria 1., "accessible" should not be there. >> >- Why "relevant" over "appropriate"? Relevant is probably harder to >> >define. >> >> I think that relevant means that there is something that relates to >> it whereas appropriate means if you think you want to use it - or >> something... > >"Relevant" seems fuzzier to me than "appropriate". >ex. "SVG is appropriate for encoding blueprints" vs. "SVG is relevant >for encoding blueprints"? we could also talk about this. I think that relevant means it deals with the topic while appropriate means that it deals with the topic and i think it should be used here...or something ... > > > >GUIDELINE 3: INTRO TEXT: > >What about: "While ensuring the accessibility of automated output >provides a solid foundation for accessible content, without proper >supports authors, will likely act in ways that undermine these >measures." yes, but support, authors may act in ways that... being picky!! > > >Checkpoints 3.1/3.2/3.3/3.4: > >"Request"? > yes - good!
Received on Thursday, 7 November 2002 18:49:30 UTC