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

RE: Reason Revisited

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:09:51 -0700
Message-Id: <>
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.

Received on Monday, 11 June 2001 10:10:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:37 UTC