- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:06:35 -0500 (EST)
- To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>
- cc: "'Kynn Bartlett'" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, "'Web Content Accessibility Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "'Jason White'" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
I agree absolutely. But I would like to see the final rationale information included n the Techniques document (with perhaps a brief summary per guideline in the Guidelines document). Charles McCN On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Bailey, Bruce wrote: [snip] > Hmm... I am beginning to believe that we should standardize each > checkpoint with a <benefit>...</benefit> section which would define > what exactly each checkpoint does. I very much like the way how you > have been presenting the usefulness of each, which also helps with > increased perception of the _need_ for each checkpoint. > > This means that for each checkpoint now we would have to insert a > "reason" clause. I think that's doable and in fact I think it is > mandatory. Should this be a separate discussion about document > structure and format? [snip] This would, IMHO, be most welcome. There are a few check points I would love to see the rational for! -- Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia September - November 2000: W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Monday, 30 October 2000 09:06:44 UTC