Re: Consensus on longdesc change proposal

On 5/31/11, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2011 15:27:04 +0200, Laura Carlson
> <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Chaals,
>>
>> On 5/30/11, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 May 2011 02:50:15 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
>>> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you think that anything in the ARIA section [1] of the change
>> proposal should be reworded to make it clearer?
>
> Yes:
>
>> If so, can you suggest specific verbiage?
>
> Hmm.
>
> I would suggest restructuring the list of problems, first to remove
> redundancies,

Thank you very much. I tried to incorporate your verbiage, eliminate
redundancy yet still include some of the details as sub-points as the
Chairs and others didn't seem to understand those details on the first
go-round.

> and then to provide a table since many of the same problems
> apply to many of the proposed alternatives...

I'll give this some thought, although I know Gregory has been hesitant
to use tables in the Wiki.

Thanks again. I appreciate your help very, very much.

Best Regards,
Laura

-- 
Laura L. Carlson