RE: Checkpoint on testability

At 01:59 PM 12/22/2000 , William Loughborough wrote:
>Even though this is in theory doable with just icons, the proposed detailed methods provide a lot more context/confidence/checkability (love that alliteration).

I will review the detailed methods again to try to see what you
are seeing in them, William.

Do you agree that "detailed methods" probably belong in techniques,
even if we agree that some sort of compliance verification
guideline may be of use to certain users with disabilities?

(I think part of my reaction to the proposed checkpoints may have
been simply a reaction to the fact that it seemed to mandate one,
and only one, solution for the problem.)

--Kynn
-- 
Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                    http://kynn.com/
Sr. Engineering Project Leader, Reef-Edapta       http://www.reef.com/
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet   http://www.idyllmtn.com/
Contributor, Special Edition Using XHTML     http://kynn.com/+seuxhtml
Unofficial Section 508 Checklist           http://kynn.com/+section508

Received on Friday, 22 December 2000 19:12:44 UTC