Re: Terminology

At 06:53 PM 8/14/2000 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>The techniques, however, provide specific ways of meeting the requirements
>for specific technologies. As Kynn used to ask, we need to be clear about
>whether a given technique meets the entirety of the requirement or not in
>some cases it will others not. For example, alt attributes cannot by
>themselves fulfill the requirements of WCAG 1 checkpoint 1.1 except in a
>limited, albeit large, set of cases.

I sound like I'm dead or something, Chaalz. :)

Hi everyone, by the way -- I had somehow lost my subscription, but
I'm back now and hope to start participating again.

In my experience the biggest disconnect when dealing with WCAG is
what we're talking about now -- how to make it understandable what
-exactly- is meant, and what people -must- do.  Because the WCAG
has been and will continue to be adopted as a legal or policy
requirement, we need to present a form of our guidelines that does
fill that need for "checkability" and "do-this"-ness.  Otherwise
the confusion will just continue to increase.

(PS:  Thanks for the kind words about the SUNY presentation.  If I
get some more time in the near future -- which is a faraway hope,
yes -- I hope to increase the usefulness of that particular
presentation with examples and graphical content.)

--Kynn


-- 
Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                       http://kynn.com/
Director of Accessibility, Edapta                  http://www.edapta.com/
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet      http://www.idyllmtn.com/
AWARE Center Director                         http://www.awarecenter.org/
Vote for Liz for N. Am. ICANN Nominee!             http://kynn.com/+icann

Received on Monday, 14 August 2000 23:05:08 UTC