- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 22:07:46 -0400 (EDT)
- To: WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
My comments scattered - look for IJ and CMN On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Ian Jacobs wrote: Hello, Part 1) I don't think it's a good idea to redefine the terms Guidelines and Checkpoints. I think doing so will create confusion and I don't understand why it's necessary. [some good reasons] CMN I agree, as is probably obvious by now <grin/> IJ Part 2) I think it's important to convey the following (either in WCAG 2.0 or in a document central to all the guidelines): a) The WAI accessibility model assigns responsibilities to different parties for ensuring accessibility: authors, user agent developers, and users. CMN A paragraph or two in the introduction, and the odd relevant note in guidelines (or checkpoints, depending on your terminology) IJ b) The requirements of the WAI Guidelines are determined by the Working Group based on (in no particular order): 1) User needs 2) Technology readily available to users and authors, including authoring software, assistive technologies, operating systems, and specifications. Cost and feasibility do factor into the requirements, though more weight is given to user requirements in general. Making some assumptions more explicit will make the document easier to write and easier to communicate to readers. CMN Hmmmm. I think the requirements are a bit different. Things have to be technically feasible, or there ain't much point. And then the requirement should be based on User Need. Where there are things that depend on browser technology, it should be clear what we are assuming as a baseline technology - this is a specific discussion we need to have, to sort out what are the principles we use to make the decision, and then what are the current facts that lead to a current decision, and what are trigers for re-examination. IJ Part 3) Organizing principles. While I'm at it, here's how I might break down the requirements (without indicating here which responsibilities are for authors, user agent developers, and users. CMN (I am plagiarising Ian's warning) WARNING: The following organization and commentary has been jotted down capriciously and is subject to emphatic retraction by the author. Comments are welcome! Well, I think that organisation principles are arbitrary. I would like to see them remain reasonably close to the last lot unless there's a really good reason not to. Although I am sensitive to the need for other groups such as UAAG and ATAG to be able to find out what they are supposed to be doing. cheers chaals
Received on Monday, 14 August 2000 22:07:46 UTC