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