- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 07:18:01 -0800
- To: w3C-wai-au@w3.org
JT:: "In assigning priority levels for checkpoints, "the author" or user
of the tool is assumed..."
WL: On a cursory reading it gave me the impression that the author was
assigning priorities.
My remaining feeling about both the "applicability" and "relative
priority" is that they were fine some time back and that whatever we do
is sort of like marginalia, i.e. explanations of what is meant for those
who didn't "get it" from the original language - which will always
include somebody, no matter how extensive the textual extensions.
I think it is as important to assume literacy and intelligence on the
part of the developer, user, and casual reader of this document as it is
to speculate about her knowledge of the interface, HTML, or
accessibility concerns. It just seems that the mere phrase "relative
priority" is very nearly self-explanatory and that "common sense" would
allow one to conclude that an offering without audio wouldn't need to
attend to the need for text captioning for that medium.
If the group wants to make further "elucidations" of the intent, I'll
certainly go along but there is obfuscation caused by proliferation of
endlessly growing volume of explanatory material designed to answer the
almost infinite possible extensible questioning of every possible
interpretation of each phrase used in making the document try to play to
the widest possible audience of those who care to raise comparatively
trivial issues concerning...(well, you get the idea!).
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Thursday, 9 December 1999 10:20:00 UTC