RE: My Action Item: Multiple interface guideline

On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, William Loughborough wrote:

> At 07:02 PM 10/16/00 -0700, m. may wrote:
> >The flexibility I'm proposing here
> 
> I am in full agreement with your sentiments but I don't find an actual 
> concrete proposal. I have not met you at a F2F (if so that event has 
> dissolved in the mists of my antiquity) or sensed your participation in the 
> teleconferences. 

(Catch-phrase: "'tis better to be silent and thought a fool...")

I would have been at Bristol, but thanks to our merger, in the weeks
leading up to the F2F I didn't even have a manager who could sign off on
vacation, much less approve the trip. I'll be in attendance next time. 

> Unless this is a "vaporprop", cruelly raising our hopes of 
> an "aperture for forward-thinking accessibility techniques
> in the context of WCAG compliance" (catchy phrase, thank you), it's a "good 
> thing".

I'll put together what I can in advance of the Thursday con call.

> Incidentally "prevent them from improving the Way Things Are" imputes to 
> us  (and probably to them as well) a motive that is, IMHO, entirely absent. 
> First there is no "prevention"; second there's not really much "improving" 
> being stultified.

On the contrary: I think there are several people on this very list who
are working on improving the technology in precisely the ways I'm thinking
about...