Re: Formal Objection to Checkpoint 9.2

>If I remember correctly, the reason for the repair in this case is that
what
>is needed is for accessability because the bad mark up does not severely
>hamper non disabled users.

That really depends on the action taken.

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


David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net> on 04/25/2000 02:58:33 PM

To:
cc:   Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Subject:  Re: Formal Objection to Checkpoint 9.2



If I remember correctly, the reason for the repair in this case is that
what
is needed is for accessability because the bad mark up does not severely
hamper non disabled users.


schwer@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> I would like to register an objection to the resolution of Issue 243. I
> believe that checkpoint 9.2 should be a P3 requirement rather than a P2
> requirement because this is a content authoring problem that effects
> usability. User Agents should not be required to correct poor content as
a
> disability requirement. This creates an undue burden on user agents. I do
> not feel this recommendation should go forward with this as a P2
> requirement.
>
> Does anyone else agree with this.
>
> 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

--
Hands-On Technolog(eye)s
ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/poehlman
http://poehlman.clark.net
mailto:poehlman@clark.net
voice 301-949-7599
end sig.

Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2000 14:01:51 UTC