- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 07:17:55 -0700
- To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <unagi69@concentric.net>
- CC: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, Authoring Tools Guidelines List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Just as the argument stated (eloquently?) by Gregory for starting at the
beginning "...start by addressing what i have always understood to be
the first principle of software design.." with making the authoring tool
usable (I know we call it accessible, but...), the notion that this will
somehow "turn off" a developer and cause her to skip reading the rest of
the document still seems absurd to me. By the same token my fear that
putting it at the end of the guidelines will tar it with the brush of
"oh, and by the way some PWDs might want to use your tool" may be
somewhat overstated; nevertheless, if the ordering of these things is
really important (which I think is almost nonsense) I think we should be
considering *ALL* of the guidelines' positions. Why should they be in
the order they're in?
Just as I think it's a waste of time to find the optimum order I think
it's pure politics to change what is now #1 to become #7 - but, hey this
is a political (democratic?) process and though I still vote for the
current order, I make no stand that *ANY* order is unacceptable.
Priorities are another matter.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 1999 10:18:27 UTC