W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: what type of document do we want?

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 18:59:46 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010403185946.007b9b80@pop.erols.com>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Cc: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At Charles request I have hung the Whitehouse page on my site along with
current graphics. Inserted in the text are text descriptions of the
pictures that should go there. I do not have any extra pictures, just
descriptions of what the pictures should be to make this page usable if the
text were "greeked out" ... 

					Anne

At 04:31 AM 4/3/01 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>William, I am standing virtually by your side, though bytes may be rained
>upon me...
>
>I think the most appropriate way of explaining what is needed are examples,
>and this will take us some time at our current rate of production (one image
>in WCAG 2, 4 icons and about a dozen images in ATAG techs, ...). They will
>also need to be backed up with some general explanation of what we are trying
>to accomplish, and why the examples are good ones (or not).
>
>Similar to the way that we actually explain what is reqiured as an equivalent
>alternative by providing examples. (But they are easier to do <grin/>)
>
>I think this stuff is all techniques material - supporting information, that
>should explain how to do something, abd how to check if it has been done
>(these may not be the same part - see the latest group draft of techniques
>for authoring tool accessibility
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WD-ATAG10-TECHS-20010319/
>as an example of how these <em>might<em> be split).
>
>cheers
>
>chaals
>
>
>On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, William Loughborough wrote:
>
>  At 06:09 PM 4/2/01 -0400, Anne Pemberton wrote:
>  >... I wouldn't want to say how many graphics per page indicate it's
>  >properly "illustrated", but will we have to?
>
>  As the guidelines document itself becomes more self-reflexive in this
>  regard we can talk more honorably about this matter. As a group we should
>  take it upon ourselves to provide illustrations that illustrate the
>  importance of illustration.
>
>  I have tried, however naively to make a start in this direction
>  [http://pair.com/xguide.htm] as has Wendy in her "icon" accompanying
>  checkpoint 3.4 [http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#supplement-text].
>
>  I think it should become a regular topic on the list - suggested
>  illustrations and discussions thereof. The time is past when we can
>  straight-facedly claim that they are either impossible or unimportant.
>
>  I hope I am not alone in this stand?
>
>  --
>  Love.
>                   ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
>
>
>-- 
>Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409
134 136
>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617
258 5999
>Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
>(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
France)
>
>
Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2001 18:54:48 GMT

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