Re: New Guidelines available for discussion.

> 1) We have a good 2nd draft of the checklist for Authors and the Guidelines
> for Authors.

I'll comment on the guidelines for authors (content itself) in
a separate message. Just its form/presentation in this message. 

I think the beginning section

  Rating System
    [required]
    [recommended]
  Classification System
    [interim]
    [new]

should be reorganized as

  Rating System 
    importance
      [required]
      [recommended]
    timing
      [interim]
      [new]


> 2) We have a first draft of the Master Guidelines but it is not up to date
> yet on the Page author information and has only minimal entries for
> browser, toolmaker and screen reader makers.  The browser and tools
> recommendations, guidelines and checklists will come primarily from those
> respective working groups.

I see the Master guidelines as more of a final assemblage than
anything else (I agree it can also serve as a way to track related
guidelines in markup/browser/authoring area).


> 1)  we were able to get the ratings down to a two level rating system.
> "required" and "recommended".  Look them over.

I like the use of <span> to mark up required and recommended markers
(add colors, etc). I'd suggest to do more: mark [Interim] and [new]
the same way and move them up on the line right after
[required/recommended], they are hard to find otherwise.

BTW, I really like the terms interim and new, good choice.

In addition to <SPAN>, it would be really good if we'd use <DIV> to
mark-up the section themselves (as being required, new etc). This way
one could just use CSS display:none or some grey foreground font to
select a particular "view" of the document.

> 2)  We have used style sheets and otherwise tried to follow all the
> guidelines in putting the guidelines doc together.  It has been
> interesting.  For one thing, we have found that it is hard to use style
> sheets today and have any predictable results with today's browsers.  Even
> with the same browsers and printers different people seem to get different
> results when printing.

Yes, CSS printing is not there yet.

> 4)   Per Daniel's comments, these remain listed as Unified Web Access
> Guidelines compiled for WAI WG until such time as they finally pass muster
> and are adopted by the WAI.  They will then change to WAI/W3C guidelines.

Actually, I think it's OK if we call them the W3C/WAI working draft
guidelines (since that's what they are) and if we move them to
www.w3.org/WAI/GL/Version1.html or something similar.

Regarding version, is there any reason why it's still version 8 ?

Received on Monday, 8 December 1997 07:16:32 UTC