[techs] Re: Techniques For HTML Rough Draft

Chris,

Thanks.  This raises some good questions and issues.

1. We need to figure out how to combine AERT with the current HTML 
Techniques draft [1].  Or will we have two documents?  Also, keep in mind 
the relation to ATAG and ATAG Techniques [2].
2. How will we handle overlap of techniques?  For example, you have 
technique 3.5.1 "Check document for header nesting" associated with 
checkpoint 3.1, but these might also be relevant to checkpoint 1.3 "Make 
all content and structure available independently of presentation."
3. I'm curious how you sorted the techniques into Levels.  There are some 
WCAG 1.0 priority 1 techniques in Level 2, Minimum Level are primarily WCAG 
1.0 priority 2.  If this sorting is correct, then people who conform to 
WCAG 1.0 will be a bit confused when they move to WCAG 2.0.
(the next two questions are from your document)
4. What is a major section and what is a long document?
5. Can valid long documents be devoid of paragraphs?
This might relate to the applicability axis we talked about at last 
Thursday's telecon.

--w

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/wcagtech020320.html#text
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/#Deliverables

At 02:00 PM 2/25/2003, Chris Ridpath wrote:

>I've created a (very) rough draft of the techniques for guideline 3.1
>(navigable) and posted it at:
>http://www.aprompt.ca/TechniquesDraft1.html
>
>This is really just the techniques from the AERT that seem to fit the new
>3.1 guideline. These techniques are referenced by title but in the final
>document they would be filled out as in the AERT.
>
>I've placed the techniques under the 3 categories of minimum, level 2 and
>level 3 as I thought they fit.
>
>Before going any further I thought I should see if I'm on the right track.
>What's right or wrong with this document?
>
>Chris

-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
/--

Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 02:11:11 UTC