- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 06:56:46 -0700
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 09:33 AM 5/14/01 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>For any description of a process or a of relationships, provide a graphic
>equivalent.
Now we're getting somewhere approaching "concrete".
Incidentally the instant proposed checkpoint should likely, at least IMO,
provide a graphic equivalent? We should examine everything in the document
to ascertain which ones fit this proposed checkpoint. Then we can be more
into "doing" in a more elaborate sense than *just* "talking"?
One implication of the long thread is that the checkpoints are mostly
acceptable?
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Monday, 14 May 2001 09:55:04 UTC