- From: john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
- Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 07:03:33 -0500
- To: "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <charles@w3.org>, Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
- Cc: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I like this approach very much. John -----Original Message----- From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charles@w3.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 3:56 AM To: Jason White Cc: Web Content Guidelines Subject: RE: CONFORMANCE: new sentence on testability, plus comments Jason, your memory is (not surprisingly, in my experience <grin/>) correct. I think that if we are setting confromance level criteria we should specify at each level who is benefitting and who is not. Cheers Chaals On Wed, 8 May 2002, Jason White wrote: Should the rationale under each checkpoint be stratified by conformance level? That is, should it be explicit as to who will most likely benefit from level 1 conformance, who will still be excluded unless level 2 or level 3 is met, and, where applicable, what the limitations of the checkpoint as regards making the content accessible? I recall a memorable statement by Charles McCathieNevile at a WCAG meeting (last November, if memory serves) to the effect that he wanted content developers and policy setters, via the guideline, to be aware of whom they were including and excluding by taking certain design decisions; and that the conformance scheme should facilitate such awareness. [Charles, please correct me if this summary misrepresents your assertions at the meeting.] -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2002 08:03:41 UTC