W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > January 2001

Re: example of site where text-only does not convey all info

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:43:17 -0800
Message-Id: <>
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Cc: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
At 03:27 PM 1/22/01 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>Maybe we don't mean equivalent at all.

If a person can find out when the train's coming, order flowers, or get a 
synopsis of "War and Peace" using the alternate version.

Ultimately it's pragmatics at its best. Kelly Ford had a problem ordering 
groceries and if the alternate version allows him to do so then it is for 
his purposes equivalent.

Or some such. I don't think he'll be as concerned about sunsets but might 
well like to know something about why they have some emotive affect on the 

Maybe it falls into the "I don't know what it means but I know it when I 
encounter it" category. But I'll bet there's widespread agreement in a lot 
of cases as to whether an "equivalent site" works and we hope to codify 
what it takes to make how to do that clear.

Received on Monday, 22 January 2001 19:42:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:31 UTC