- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:42:26 -0600
- To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au, "'Web Content Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Also, if this is a review, we need to say what should be reviewed. It can't be a review against a specific target or criteria or else it starts becoming a success criteria. So we should be specific about the dimension and the direction and even what is "usually the best". But I don't think we should be specifying a specific criteria. Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jason White Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 2:15 AM To: Web Content Guidelines Subject: RE: Lists in normative section Lisa Seeman writes: > > The further we go from definite requirements for the review, the less > seriously people will take them. > It is obvious but worth reminding everyone I haven't seen any proposal to reduce the specificity of the requirements for the review, but only to phrase them in such a way that they are obviously different from the success criteria. If you think any specificity is lost in this process, I am sure further work can be done to fine-tune the relevant statements. However, I am confident that Avi will be careful in drafting the next version to ensure that the items to be reviewed are as specific as possible.
Received on Monday, 20 January 2003 11:42:28 UTC