- From: <gian.sampsonwild@families.qld.gov.au>
- Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 17:58:18 +1000
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Wow it sounds like you guys had a very interesting discussion! The
suggestions sound really good, but I just want to make sure we aren't
getting too bogged down in categorising minimum checkpoints according to
some criteria (whether this is by how they affect the default presentation
or whether the success criteria are testable), when really the only
criteria minimum checkpoints MUST fulfill is that WITHOUT them people
cannot access the information. Thus, using your suggested categorisation,
the checkpoint, "Make language simple and clear", will no longer be a
minimum checkpoint, and that will make the site inaccessible to people with
cognitive disabilities/dyslexia etc.
As for Observation 2 & 3 (some checkpoints not being applicable), why can't
we say at the end of those checkpoints "if functionality is used in the
site" or something to that effect?
I like the idea that countries can pick and choose from certain checkpoints
- however I think it's important we make sure they all include the minimum
set.
As for Observation 7 (have some other target to shoot for), I don't know
whether I agree or disagree. From my experience companies want to do that
"little bit extra" and so go to Double A, but see Triple A for sites that
have an audience of solely people with disabilities (versus an audience of
"the general public"). So I don't know whether having two levels ("Minimum"
and "All") would mean these companies would stay put with the Minimum
criteria, or whether their "little bit extra" extends to implementing all
checkpoints.
Cheers,
Gian
=============================================
The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the
recipient(s) only. It may contain privileged or confidential
information. If you are not the intended recipient of this
e-mail, you must not copy, distribute or take any action
that relies on it.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender immediately and then delete the message.
This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has
been checked for the presence of computer viruses.
Department of Families provide no guarantee that all possible viruses
have been detected and cleaned during this process.
=============================================
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2003 03:58:31 UTC