- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:09:51 -0700
- To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 12:49 AM 6/11/01 -0500, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>If there is a "within reason" provision we need to so state somewhere
You are the one who deals with agencies/bureaucracies/standardisers. To me
it's "implicit" in the second dictionary sense as "unquestioned" more than
in the first sense of "implied".
I would recommend that if it is to become "explicit" that it be addressed
in some way in the foreword so that it is emphasized that we aren't
draconian, but politic in our willingness to understand acceptable
compromise, etc. If it is boringly included in every (almost every?)
checkpoint it might look a bit ridiculous?
Len always spoke of the need to understand a designer's purpose in making
certain decisions and this is part of what "within reason" is intended to
accomplish. In other words we are proceeding with the understanding that
whoever is consulting these guidelines has the same goals we do: to make
stuff accessible to PWD - and by inclusion, to everyone.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Monday, 11 June 2001 10:10:30 UTC