- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 13:02:12 -0800
- To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>
- Cc: "'Web Content Accessibility Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "'Wendy A Chisholm'" <wendy@w3.org>, "'Leonard R. Kasday'" <kasday@acm.org>
At 12:37 PM 1/16/2001 , Bailey, Bruce wrote: >It was actually this checkpoint that made decide to settle for Single-A >compliance. Kynn would be pleased to know that missing AA didn't scare me >off most of the other P2 and P3 items. I am pleased, although I daresay that you (as an active member of the Web Accessibility Initiative and other such projects) are far from an average test case. Question to consider: If we didn't have the artificial divide of priority 1, priority 2, and priority 3 -- and instead tried to, I dunno, urge compliance based on common sense -- how many more checkpoints would there have been included in Section 508 guidelines? It's my estimation that a "priority 2" checkpoint means a far less greater chance of someone doing it than priority 1, and giving something a priority 3 checkpoint is pretty much a death wish for that checkpoint. (Interpretation by insiders, such as Bruce, who understand WCAG on a deeper level than average will of course produce atypical results.) --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com/ Technical Developer Relations, Reef http://www.reef.com/ Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet http://idyllmtn.com/ Contributor, Special Ed. Using XHTML http://kynn.com/+seuxhtml Unofficial Section 508 Checklist http://kynn.com/+section508
Received on Tuesday, 16 January 2001 16:01:01 UTC