- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:49:03 -0600
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
We decided to not use A, AA, AAA in WCAG 2.0 because 2.0 is structured in a completely different way and level 1 2 and 3 don't mean the same thing as A, AA, and AAA. So it would be confusing. But if we ignore that detail - and just think of it as being 3 levels of increasing accessibility. Interesting to consider. But then don't you end up with a number scheme that looks like N1AAA2 ?? 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 Jonathan Chetwynd Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:34 PM To: Matt May Cc: gv@trace.wisc.edu; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Re: RE numbering proposal Gregg, as if I need to spell it out, I agree with Matt, and would prefer, one English word such as Navigation to be included as a topic marker Presumably this word could be translated for localisation AAA is clearer than 1,2 ,3 in my opinion as AAA is clearly the best, whereas 1 and 3 are arguable.....similarly with A and C thanks Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2003 01:49:07 UTC