W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2000

Re: Agenda

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:06:05 -0800
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20001031175004.02bf3ce0@mail.gorge.net>
To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 12:08 PM 11/1/00 +1100, Jason White wrote:
>1.1 Ensure that all content can be presented as text.

Call in the wordsmiths <g>. Active voice would be nice. "Enable textual 
presentation of all content" but in the long run it doesn't matter very 
much compared to the importance of getting across the intent. IMO the rest 
of the "soliloquy" associated with this fundamental guideline is really 
informative/explanatory/technique/example kind of stuff.

I know there is little support for my position that it detracts from the 
power of the concept to have all that temporizing verbiage, but that's how 
I feel. I just think it's most effective to put the defining language off 
in a linkable elsewhere. Some of it is what I've called "exception table" 
material, some techniques, some elucidation. For a great many readers, none 
of that is necessary and is in fact distracting.

The "tables of the law" did not have asterisks leading to footnotes 
explaining when it was OK to covet thy neighbor's wife, etc. but since 
everybody might not understand what "textual presentation" and "content" 
mean, it's OK to have it all made clear, even if the defining explanation 
could even further obfuscate the central message.

Same comment for 2.3

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Tuesday, 31 October 2000 21:04:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:08 GMT