- From: Lee Roberts <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 01:20:33 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <NFBBJHFEOLAGEICMIMBPKEHFCHAA.leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>
I'm confused with the terminology here. "The site reviewed..."? Should we say, "The site content was reviewed ..."? Level 2: "The user asserts..."? Perhaps, "The developer or designer asserts..."? I'm still with the feeling that DOCTYPE should be in Level 1 success criteria. Additionally, I think LANG should be placed in Level 1 simply because we would want the screen readers to read the information correctly and not arbitrarily. These two items are easily placed into every site and can make it easier for the screen readers to do their jobs. Thanks, Lee Roberts “the site reviewed the content with the objectives below in mind” or “The site asserts that they reviewed the content with the objectives below in mind” Or level 2 that are “ the user asserts they considered this and did the best they felt was possible and appropriate.” But we don’t want to have checkpoints that don’t have any testable measures that can be applied across sites (or we make some sites that cannot claim any conformance since L1 is minimum) AND – we don’t want to take some checkpoints off the table for L1 (or they might not even show up on people’s todo list). Your thoughts? Gregg ------------------------------------ Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D. Ind Engr - Biomed - Trace, Univ of Wis gv@trace.wisc.edu -- For a list of our listserves send “lists” to listproc@trace.wisc.edu <mailto:listproc@trace.wisc.edu>
Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2002 02:21:30 UTC