W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 1999

Replies to Olivier Borius on 9 March 1999 draft [Was: UAWG]

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 19:47:33 -0500
Message-ID: <3702C225.CD26BBF6@w3.org>
To: Olivier Borius <oborius.fidev@wanadoo.fr>
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org

Thank you for the comments. Due to my own scheduling constraints, I have
not been able to incorporate any changes into the UA Guidelines since
9 March draft. We will be publishing this draft to the TR page tonight
or tomorrow. Your comments are appreciated and will be considered by
the working group and incorporated into the next draft.
> Second, we would like to make some comments about some checkpoints :
>         - checkpoint 5.3.1 : must be a priority 1

In the 10 March teleconf [1], the WG discussed the priority of
this checkpoint (Allow the user to navigate sequentially among links.).
It was decided to ensure that priority of 6.2.1 as Priority 1
(Allow the user to navigate sequentially among all active elements in
the document.)
and to keep the special case of just links as a priority 2. I don't
think this
discuss has ended yet.

>         - checkpoint 5.3.5 : the number of links is important, 
>         but the number of visited and/or unvisited links also

The working group will discuss this proposal.

>         - checkpoint 6.1.11 : must be a priority 1, but there is not the 
> same level of priority between knowing "whether loading has stalled",
> knowing "whether enough of the page has loaded to begin navigating",
> and "whether following a link involves a fee", which can be indeed priority 3

So you are proposing creating more than one checkpoint (which we
do when one contains too much information)? The working group will
discuss this proposal.

Thank you again,

 - Ian

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) 
Tel/Fax: (212) 684-1814 
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 1999 19:49:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:21 UTC