W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2008

Re: HTML Action Item 54 - ...draft text for HTML 5 spec to require producers/authors to include @alt on img elements.

From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 16:53:18 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <21456863.1210625598555.JavaMail.root@elwamui-wigeon.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, wai-liaison@w3.org, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>

To glean the logic and reasons behind decisions that went into WCAG 2, there is this document called Understanding WCAG 2.0.

http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20080430/

"Understanding WCAG 2.0" provides detailed information about each Success Criterion, including its intent, the key terms that are used in the Success Criterion, and how the Success Criteria in WCAG 2.0 help people with different types of disabilities. This document also provides examples of Web content that meet the success criterion using various Web technologies (for instance, HTML, CSS, XML), and common examples of Web content that does not meet the success criterion.



-----Original Message-----
>From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
>Sent: May 12, 2008 3:32 PM
>To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
>Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, wai-liaison@w3.org, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
>Subject: Re: HTML Action Item 54 - ...draft text for HTML 5 spec to require  producers/authors to include @alt on img elements.
>
>
>Steven Faulkner wrote:
>> i am not going to bother responding to the the rest of your inflamatory guff.
>
>I would actually rather like to see a response to this:
>
>>>  So wait. Do you actually understand the logic behind WCAG 2.0 on this or
>>> other points? If so, then refusing the explain the logic seems like a
>>> needless lack of collegiality. If not, does that mean you have just taken
>>> WCAG 2.0 on faith and applied it without understanding the underlying logic?
>>> If that is the case, then I do not understand how your proposal can be
>>> meaningfully discussed.
>
>I feel that it would help me, as an implementor, to understand the 
>reasons for the WCAG 2.0 decisions, not just read the final product...
>
>-Boris
>
>


* katie *

Katie Haritos-Shea 
Section 508 Technical Policy Analyst

703-371-5545

People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did, 
but they will never forget how you made them feel.......
Received on Monday, 12 May 2008 20:54:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:17 GMT