W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > October to December 2000

Re: Scope, Intro, Inside/Outside Analysis

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:39:39 -0400
Message-ID: <39E3626B.163D4FA@w3.org>
To: Eric Hansen <ehansen7@hotmail.com>
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, ehansen@ets.org
Eric Hansen wrote:
> To: UA List
> From: Eric Hansen
> Re: Scope, Intro, Inside/Outside Analysis
> The suggestions in Part 1 are intended to fulfill the assignment that I took
> to write material on "scope and limitations". I have placed that material in
> a larger section that I call the "Introduction." Part 1 also provides are
> newly revised Abstract.
> Part 2 provides an analysis of in-scope versus out-of-scope accessibility
> capabilities.
> ====
> Suggestion 4: Fix or remove the verbiage on installation.
> The following is out of place. It is either redundant with existing
> checkpoints or if something more is intended, it should be a checkpoint.
> "In order for people to use the software at all, the installation procedure
> (and any subsequent software update procedures) must be accessible according
> to the guidelines of this document. For example, the software must provide
> device-independent access and accessible documentation of the installation."

I disagree.

1) We have already decided on two occasions not to add any checkpoints
   to installation other than .

2) We have also agreed to emphasize the importance of an accessible

Therefore, I believe the text must stay (per earlier WG agreements).
we could find a better place for it in the document.

 - Ian

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2000 14:39:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:28 UTC