- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:48:10 +1100
- To: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Graham Oliver writes: > Jason > Would it be possible to give a couple of checkpoint > examples that fall _outside_ the minimum set as > defined. > This will help my understanding of the definition The same examples apply as in Wendy's original proposal. I would suggest a careful reading of the checkpoint-by-checkpoint analysis in Wendy's original message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2001OctDec/0151.html Much of the confusion in recent discussions is due, I think, to various working group members' having somewhat different conceptions of what is meant by the several proposals that have been advanced. We need to eliminate the misunderstandings so that we can concentrate firmly upon analysing the merits of the options which have been put forward, and arrive at creative solutions. The "Eliminate Barriers with aid of relevant AT" principle is meant to be a recasting of OTACS 2, but from a user's perspective which makes the access benefit explicit while drawing the same distinction between core and non-core checkpoints.
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2001 17:48:24 UTC