- From: Doyle <dburnett@sesa.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:33:41 -0800
- To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <B98FC295.2012%dburnett@sesa.org>
Greg - Thanks for putting into words what it was we discussed at the most recent teleconference. I agree, fully, that 1.3 and 1.4 should be close to each other as I was having a challenging time with them being somewhat contradictory, myself. I will take a look at 1.4 and see if I can come up with any wording. -- Doyle Burnett Education Specialist Multiple Disabilities Program 907-562-7372 From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu> Organization: Trace Center Reply-To: gv@trace.wisc.edu Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:11:25 -0500 To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Moving Checkpoint 3.2 to Guideline 1 to Become New 1.4 Resent-From: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:11:36 -0400 (EDT) Moving Checkpoint 3.2 to Guideline 1 to Become New 1.4 A suggestion that came from the teleconference was to take Checkpoint 3.2 łEmphasize Structure Through Presentations, Positioning and Labels˛ and move it up to become a new Checkpoint 1.4 (pushing the old 1.4 to become 1.5, etc.). This is suggested because it was felt that the purpose for emphasizing the structure through presentation was to make it perceivable. Making it more perceivable, of course, facilitates navigation, understanding, orientation, etc. The primary purposes for emphasizing it, however, was so that the structure can be perceived independently from the rest of the content. A second motivation for moving it up next to 1.3 is that the two guidelines can be viewed as being contradictory if not read carefully. By putting them immediately next to each other, it becomes clear that they must work together. It also makes it easier to look back and forth between them to discern their separate and complimentary (rather than contradictory) roles. It was further suggested that 3.2 (now the new 1.4) be looked at to see if a slight rewording of the Checkpoint might make its complimentary role even clearer. However, the group was not able to come up with such a wording at the meeting. Comments are solicited. Thanks. Gregg ------------------------------------ Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D. Ind Engr - Biomed - Trace, Univ of Wis gv@trace.wisc.edu
Received on Monday, 26 August 2002 15:37:20 UTC