- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@tux.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 17:39:09 -0500 (EST)
- To: WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I have annotated some of these directly as well. Look for EH:: and CMcCN:: Charles McCatieNevile On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, eric hansen wrote: > Item-2. An Automated Tool CMcCN:: As Daniel said, bobby is such a tool. EH:: > Item-3. Represent Material to Support Diverse Queries or > Compilations > Item-4. Only the Guideline Statements Should Be Normative CMcCN:: These have both been discussed on the list and in teleconferences. I believe that we are currently thinking the only guidelines should be normative, and that everyone agrees that being able to recast the guidelines is a Good Thing (TM) but the latter increases the amount of reworking required to update the document. As it is currently a working draft, I think we should settle the guidelines seperately to discussing the structure we provide to allow re-presentation, but that we should be having both discussions. EH:: > Item-7. Most Documents Will Mix Normative and Non-normative > Information > Item-8. The WAIGL-PA Represents a Mix of Normative and Non- > normative Components CMcCN:: This is true, and is a strong argument for some structure which allows multiple presentations. EH:: > Item-14. Make Guidelines One Sentence Long CMcCN:: I Strongly disagree as noted in my last email. EH:: > Item-16. Why Refer to Issues Not Addressed? [excerpt] > Crystal Waters in her book "Universal Web Design" says, > "This book aims to show you how to find a balance among > elements that takes advantage of the technology, serves your > viewers, and doesn't sacrifice design quality" (p. 8). > > Item-17. Priority-Levels CMcCN:: As I see it the priority levels are essential. The reason for not making them normative is that they may change over time. However deciding that they can be shifted to take commercial pressures etc into account is not a decision which has anything to do with producing accessible content - it is a decision about the commercial/technical/practical feasability of a particular project and a weighing of the various arguments about having to provide accessibility. The scope of the document is to tell people what needs to be done to achieve accessible content. EH:: > Item-21. Absence of Tactile Communication CMcCN:: True. This is the problem with listing the people who will be affected - we will never have an accurate list in a document of workable size. It may be worth referring to another informative document which could be referred from each of the Guidelines documents (and anything else). It may not be necessary. I don't know.
Received on Saturday, 5 December 1998 17:39:10 UTC