- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:46:19 -0800
- To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>, love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough), <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 5:05 PM -0800 11/29/00, Anne Pemberton wrote: > >In 1.0 it's a priority 3 and we have yet to set priorities in 2.0 so > >perhaps what you seek is a higher priority? >If priority is based on numbers of people who will/can be served by a >guidelines, then this needs to be the highest priority. The number of >people who will be served by this inclusion in the guidelines is greater >than the number served by the never-ending discussion of text in graphics. The priority system is based on the idea that if a certain population (of any size) cannot access the information, then it should be a P1. If a certain population can access the information with difficulty, then it should be a P2. If doing this just makes it easier to access the information, then it is a P3. I have no idea why this certain checkpoint is a P3, but I am afraid to be critical of WCAG 1.0 anymore, so I assume that the people who worked on WCAG 1.0 made a conscious choice to say "people who cannot read can still access textual information -- there is no absolute barrier -- but it does make them easier to access the information if there are graphics." Why they would say this, I don't know, I was not on the working group at the time. And at this rate, I probably will not be on _this_ working group much longer. --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://www.kynn.com/
Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2000 17:53:19 UTC