- From: Gian Sampson-Wild \(PurpleTop\) <gian@purpletop.com.au>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:42:59 +1100
- To: "Marja-Riitta Koivunen" <marja@w3.org>, "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I think something that explicitly includes the levels is also a good idea. I think option 4 is good but I think we are going to confuse people with using a, b and c, instead of a, aa, and aaa. I know screen-readers have problems differentiating between a, aa and aaa, so I think 1.1.Level.1 is a good idea. Gian -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Marja-Riitta Koivunen Sent: Tuesday, 10 December 2002 7:43 AM To: Wendy A Chisholm; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Re: Numbering Success Criteria I'm still not convinced we want to do the levels for each checkpoint and if all levels exists for all checkpoints (e.g. can some checkpoints have no level 1?). But if you want to number them why not just use 1.1.level1 or 1.1.level2.1 or shorter 1.1.l1 and 1.1.l2.1? Or something else that spells out what the parts of the number are. Marja
Received on Monday, 9 December 2002 18:38:13 UTC