Re: Indexing

At 03:36 PM 12/23/2000 , Sean B. Palmer wrote:
> > fuzzy distinction between "difficult" and "impossible" that
> > separate P1 from P2.
>
>I think good indexing is currently near to impossible
>(implementation-wise), but is getting closer to being difficult every day
>(look at UWIMP...), so it should probably end up as a P1 guideline.

Do you believe it should be a P1 because it is important and good,
or because it strictly follows the definition of priority 1 in
WCAG 1.0, which means that certain identifiable groups of people
with disabilities will be _absolutely unable_ to access content
if it is not indexed but otherwise follows all other WCAG standards
for accessibility?

I think we need to be careful to distinguish things which we
believe _must_ be done from things which fit the definition of
priority 1 (however we define that -- currently it's defined in
WCAG 1.0).

For example, using valid markup is P2 and using illustrations is P3;
but I believe Sean and Anne (respectively) could argue that those
are essential for access -- but not necessarily P1 as we have
narrowly defined it.

To me, this illustrates a weakness in the P1/P2/P3 system; there
are some things which I believe _must_ be done but which are
not P1 items -- the solution is not to redefine them as P1 by
ignoring our own fuzzy definition, but instead to create a firmer
definition of what P1 means.  P1 _should_ correspond with, in
my opinion, "we think these are the most important things that
you should make highest priority", but at present that is not
the case, by definition.

--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 Saturday, 23 December 2000 21:47:33 UTC