- From: Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:40:58 +0200
- To: lisa@ubaccess.com
- CC: wai-gl <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Lisa Seeman wrote: > > I am a bit concerned with using the word optional for techniques that > do not map to success criteria. > > Some techniques are less important and hence can be marked as > optional. However a lot of important techniques for the accessibility > of the content do not map to success criteria because they are hard > to test etc... > > I think labeling them optional makes important techniques sound > unimportant . I would prefer a term such as preferred , encouraged or > advanced techniques. > I agree with this distiction between optional (really less important) and preferred or advanced. It's important to point out that a not-automatically testable techniques is not automatically optional... M-
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2005 15:31:16 UTC