- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:12:17 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- cc: Janina Sajka <janina@afb.net>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <unagi69@concentric.net>, User Agent Guidelines Emailing List <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
The argument that supports a P2 requirement is as follows. Documentation, as Gregory has pointed out, and the group has recognised in the initial checkpoint, is a vital part of the toolkit a user can bring in theri attempts to make use of a piece of software. If that documentation is easy to use, then it removes a substantial barrier to use of the tool. Charles McCN On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Ian Jacobs wrote: Ian Jacobs wrote: > > Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > My proposal is therefore to resolve this by adding a checkpoint at Priority > > level 2 or 3 (according to how importantly the groups rates ease of > > documentation use as a precondition of effective use of a tool), more or less > > as follows: > > > > Ensure that at least one version of the product documentation conforms to > > at least Level Triple-A of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 > > [WCAG10]. [Priority 2or3] > > I would support P3 checkpoint to this effect and oppose a P2 > checkpoint to this effect. Actually, let me change that opinion: if we agree to this P3 checkpoint at today's teleconference, I would support it. Otherwise, it will hold up going to last call and I will object to adding it. - Ian -- Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia September - November 2000: W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2000 11:13:17 UTC