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

Re: Illustration - checkpoint proposal

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 10:03:43 -0400 (EDT)
To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
cc: WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0105141002430.9680-100000@tux.w3.org>
Yes, I would ike to have more illustrations for the checkpoint and teh
examples. But I had a time shortage, and I figured getting something out and
modifying later is better than waiting forever in case I get to do it
perfectly. (But then, I would not claim that my email propsal was accessible,
either...)

Cheers

Chaals

On Mon, 14 May 2001, William Loughborough wrote:

  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


-- 
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)
Received on Monday, 14 May 2001 10:03:44 GMT

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