- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 21:11:30 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- cc: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Regrets. Very brief thoughts on agenda items below. 6. Implementation (Should difficulty in implementation affect priority.) CMN: No 9. Access for absolutely all? - If not, how to draw line (one suggestion was "BEST EFFORT") CMN: If we have no techniques or success criteria then we have no checkpoint, and therefore we have not worked out how to solve problem XYZ. So we'll work on it. 10. Guidelines for all sites vs. special sites CMN: We are having enough trouble doing general guidelines and working out what is required. When we get there we should think about what are the next required steps. 12. Accessibility vs. usability CMN: If we have some kind of concept that says "thisis is essential, this is is imprtant, this is helpful" then we need not worry about whether it is accessibility or usability, just about the impact for users with disabilities. 13. Conformance - why do it? How to test? To be a W3C specification it is imortant to know if what has been done is what is specified. We should be able to provide success criteria that can be tested for each of the requirements for conformance. 14. Author and user needs conflict cmn: We describe what need to be done for users to get access to content. We shouldn't describe things that are helpful as necessary, or specify a method when we mean a problem. 15. User and user needs conflict CMN: If these arise we need to work out how to solve them. Until then, this is a red herring.
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2001 21:11:33 UTC