Re: BIG ISSUES

Gregg,

         Here is your original list with the concensus/no concensus 
markings ....

         There are 15 issues. Two are clearly CONCENSUS. (8 & 9)  Two are 
partly CONCENSUS. ( 7,13) One was discussed with NO CONCENSUS (6) . Ten 
issues remain in their original state.

         I'm a bit unclear on the meaning of the acronym URI ... I 
originally assumed it meant URL, but have seen it used such that it 
suggests it may be the web site rather than the specific page address that 
can contain any equivalent versions ... This was under Elephant #11 ... and 
if it means that a URI is a web site (an address and it's subdirectories, 
etal) it will neatly suit meeting the needs of all disabled persons without 
having to draw a line anywhere ....

                                                         Anne

At 12:35 PM 9/19/01 -0500, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>1. Baseline browser capabilities
>       - in general
>       - in specific contexts (intranet, public kiosk)
>2. User literacy level
>3. Differences by language
>4. What is an equivalent?
>5. How document is interpreted by non-technical people
>6. Implementation

No concensus

>7. Normative vs. informative (do we need normative?)

Concensus on some, non concensus on others, no mention of needing normative.

>8. One version for all vs. multiple versions of web content
>    - client-side vs. server-side
>     - reading levels

Concensus

>9. Access for absolutely all?    - If not, how to draw line
>10. Guidelines for all sites vs. special sites
>11. Do we intend guidelines to be used by regulators and
>requirements-setters (e.g., in companies)?

Concensus

>12. Accessibility vs. usability

????

>13. Conformance - why do it? How to test?

Concensus (on should test, but not on how to test)

>14. Author and user needs conflict
>15. User and user needs conflict added after the vote





Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45

Received on Thursday, 20 September 2001 20:12:27 UTC