Re: Indexing

Kynn,

	Following the current definition of the prioritites, including
illustrations should be a priority 1 issue, based strictly on the numbers
of people served. 

	I'm unsure where metadata should be. Certainly it would be easier to
"test" for priority one items by metadata, so it would be helpful, and
perhaps make the difference between people with speciial needs finding
sites they can use, or not. Perhaps the distinction needs to be between
supported and unsupported meta data. The supported stuff should be priority
1, and the stuff where we're hoping for future inclusion in priority 2 or 3
(since it actually makes no difference to most/any users now). 

				Anne


At 06:42 PM 12/23/00 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>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
>
>
>
Anne L. Pemberton
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1
http://www.erols.com/stevepem/Homeschooling
apembert@crosslink.net
Enabling Support Foundation
http://www.enabling.org

Received on Sunday, 24 December 2000 07:53:02 UTC