- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:16:10 -0500
- To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- CC: w3c-wai-au@w3.org, w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
Hi William, Thanks a lot for your comments. You're right that this remains confusing despite many attempts at clarifying the wording. We'll take a look. Cheers, Jan William Loughborough wrote: > > I realize I'm a bit late to the party with this, but I've been mulling > it over for several years and find it almost as hard to comment on as it > was to write this part of ATAG in the first place.. > > Specifically, the whole business of relative priorities is > dense/opaque/impenetrable and although I have no specific language that > will change that, it is important that further effort be expended trying > to make this dark thing clear. > > Perhaps if you try to think of it as an English-to-English translation > it might help. The basic idea that the priority of something depends on > "external" factors should be amenable to some simplified text. > > As it stands, I have always felt that it's a poster child for > obscurantism (or is that "obfuscation"?). I urge you to look in > isolation at the text starting at ["Relative Priority" Checkpoints] and > in particular the part labeled [Relative Priority Checkpoints in > Practice] and imagine yourself as someone trying to develop an > ATAG-compliant authoring tool. Perhaps it's my creeping senility, but it > just puts cognition barriers in my path to understanding what in the > world we are talking about here. > > Love. >
Received on Monday, 15 January 2007 19:16:48 UTC