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

Re: Illustration - checkpoint proposal

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 06:56:46 -0700
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010514065305.033caec0@mail.gorge.net>
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 GMT

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