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

Re: what type of document do we want?

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 05:08:02 -0700
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010407044348.0328bce0@mail.gorge.net>
To: "Jonathan Chetwynd" <jc@signbrowser.org.uk>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 07:36 AM 4/7/01 +0100, Jonathan Chetwynd wrote:
>if you need a hand with illustration

So far there is only one (1) illustration in WCAG 2. I daresay we need a hand.

You threw this on the table, now clean it up.

Pick a guideline or a checkpoint and illustrate away.

My (feeble?) attempt at a set of icons for the document and each guideline, 
can be seen/heard at http://rdf.pair.com/xguide.htm  (each icon links to an 
earcon).

I've found both the audio and visual "-cons" to be appropriate but that 
they will persist through analysis/translation/discussion borders on the 
unthinkable. The Spanish translation omits the sounds because they need 
translation just as much as the words did. Ultimately some sort of 
multi-media "language" that promotes easy translation may emerge from 
efforts like these.
http://www.sidar.org/traduc/Guia2v2.htm#actual

However the plain/simple/no-longer-arguable point is that we *must* have 
something akin to these built into our document else it will continue as 
one critic (rightly?) claims: "opaque, very poorly organized, daunting, and 
in many cases unrealistic." http://www.joeclark.org/accessiblog.html

So in answer to your volunteering, I would hope to see some specifics to go 
with the point you so emphatically raised in the first place. And not just 
Jonathan.

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Saturday, 7 April 2001 08:07:42 GMT

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