RE: Proposal: delete 3.4 and 3.9

Counter proposal - we don't

The checkpoints have things in common, true, and sometimes when doing the
one you will do the other.

But not always.

So for example, I could   write a long paragraph in html, with lots of ideas
flowing into each other, and jump back to the first idea and then say "see
above", so that people could (theoretically)  understand to what I refer. I
further could fill it with internal jargon and legalisms etc.

I think that that is valid html and can complies to guideline 2. It fails
checkpoints 3.4 and 3.9

(for further examples of this - see the old version of WAI)

I think what is the most distant about them is their porpoise. Checkpoint 2
is about use of markup (lets not get into it) and checkpoint three is about
were accessibility meets usability, specially for the educationally
challenged, but in fact for all groups.



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 4:10 PM
To: Jason White
Cc: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
Subject: Proposal: delete 3.4 and 3.9


Checkpoints 3.4 and 3.9 seem to me redundant with checkpoints 2.1 and 2.3 so
I propose we delete them.

The details...

3.4 provides for labelling (in markup) important pieces of content. I think
that this is the major focus of 2.3, and more properly belongs there.

3.9 provides for labelling abbreviations and acronyms - this is a special
case of that, and should become a technique.

Cheers

Charles

Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2000 11:26:04 UTC