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: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 06:38:40 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010404063840.007cb9a0@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>
Oops, I forget the address:

		http://www.erols.com/stevepem/guidelines/whitehouse.html

					Anne

At 06:59 PM 4/3/01 -0400, Anne Pemberton wrote:
>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
>
>
Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2001 06:32:52 GMT

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