Re: Instruction and Assessment

"Hansen, Eric" wrote:
> 
> And if so, why do we really need to say it at all, since conformance to
> specifications is an assumption underlying the whole document?

The difference is priority: 6.2 is P2.
 
> If this is the case, then the first sentence of checkpoint 2.1 could be
> deleted.
> 
> In that case, we would have the following:
> 
> New:
> 
> "2.1 Provide a view (e.g., a document source view) of the text portions of
> content. This is only required for formats defined by specifications that
> the user agent implements. [Priority 1]"
> Old (26 January 2001):
> 
> Old:
> 
> "2.1 Make all content available through the user interface. As part of
> meeting this requirement, provide a view (e.g., a document source view) of
> the text portions of content. This is only required for formats defined by
> specifications that the user agent implements. [Priority 1]"

[snip]

> EH:
> 
> Here is a revision of the checkpoint that pertains to content produced by
> the user agent.
> 
> New:
> 
> "1.3 Ensure that every message (e.g., prompt, alert, notification, etc.)
> that is a non-text element and is part of the user agent user interface has
> AN AVAILABLE text equivalent. [Priority 1]"
> 
> Old (26 January 2001):
> 
> "1.3 Ensure that every message (e.g., prompt, alert, notification, etc.)
> that is a non-text element and is part of the user agent user interface has
> a text equivalent. [Priority 1]"
> 
> Comment on revised checkpoint 1.3. This change makes explicit that the text
> equivalent must be available to the user.

I agree with this, though I am not sure it adds significantly to the
checkpoint.

 _ 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, 30 January 2001 12:54:21 UTC