- 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>
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 UTC