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

Re: checkpoint 8.1

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 23:27:59 -0400
Message-ID: <37BB79BF.AEB800B1@w3.org>
To: thatch@us.ibm.com
Cc: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
thatch@us.ibm.com wrote:
> I get the impression that you guys have been working so long on these
> checkpoints without others interacting that when someone comes in and says, what
> does that mean, you think, wow, she must be out in left field.

You mean other people are meant to read this document???

> Yes I am fully aware that the techniques document is not ready. But, darn it, we
> are on the same side, so to speak, I know assistive technology, and I know the
> web. The responses I have gotten have been like pontification. Quote This is the
> way it is Endquote.

I'm all ears!
> On the subject checkpoint, the wording is not consistent with the glossary. I
> believe that quote frame viewports endquote does not make sense. And the
> checkpoint should not require reference to a glossary. If this is important,  if
> should stand on its own.  That is true for other checkpoints I have asked about.

I think we can rely on the glossary and may have to. Not all
terms are used the same way, and having a definition that's
internally consistent is important and perhaps the only way to
ensure that the document as a whole stands up. Internal inconstency
is a bad thing, however.
> I believe that if I can't understand the points being made, then it is a problem
> with the wording of the points.  If I can't evaluate an agent against the
> checkpoints/guidelines then there is a problem with the checkpoints.

I agree!
I haven't had a chance to review all of your comments yet, but
I will soon.

 - Ian
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 1999 23:28:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:22 UTC