Re: Second look at checkpoint 4.7

Because this is an undo burden on application developers. There is a great
number of requirements in our user agent guidelines. My concern is that if
we place an unrealistic burden on developers that we have difficulty
gaining compliance. Also, if we are too demanding then we will be ignored.
I would prefer to have this first round of User Agent guidelines accepted
and implemented ASAP and to have the developers feel good about having done
it.

If nobody has done this particular requirement at all there is obviously a
reason for not doing it. My guess is that it was too difficult to implement
and that the payback was inadequate.

Rich


Rich Schwerdtfeger
Lead Architect, IBM Special Needs Systems
EMail/web: schwer@us.ibm.com http://www.austin.ibm.com/sns/rich.htm

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.",
Frost


menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu (mark novak) on 04/07/2000 09:48:24 AM

To:   Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
cc:
Subject:  Re: Second look at checkpoint 4.7



i'm unclear why we should wait for a reference implementation
and i'd also vote to leave the priority as is (e.g. P1)


At 7:29 PM 4/6/00, schwer@us.ibm.com wrote:
>Checkpoint 4.7 "allow the user to configure the position
>of...captions..." should be a priority 2 until a reference
>implementation is available.
>
>Rich
>
>Rich Schwerdtfeger
>Lead Architect, IBM Special Needs Systems
>EMail/web: schwer@us.ibm.com http://www.austin.ibm.com/sns/rich.htm
>
>"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
>I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.",
>Frost

Received on Friday, 7 April 2000 17:03:20 UTC