Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle

Yes. This is why we try to get a lot of people working on the spec, and
implementing it - so we pick these things out before instead of after they
become problems.

Charles McCN

On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:

  I want to copy here on the GL list a point Nick Kew made on the ER list, in
  response to the earlier version of my "considerations X" email that I
  mistakenly posted on that list:

  >* Choice - the author sees a good reason to use a construct that [the
  >guidelines warn]
  >   against, and that if used well will not present a problem.

  (actually his post referred to a different document (EARL)  the result of
  my posting to the wrong list).

  I take Nick's point to be that someone may figure out a way to make
  something accessible even though they're violating a checkpoint.

  This reminds me of a related point: that following a checkpoint may bring
  up some other accessibility problem.

  Theoretically, we'll write the checkpoints so that neither of these will
  ever happen.  But you never know... these are points to keep in mind.

  Len




  --
  Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
  Institute on Disabilities/UAP and Dept. of Electrical Engineering at Temple
  University
  (215) 204-2247 (voice)                 (800) 750-7428 (TTY)
  http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday         mailto:kasday@acm.org

  Chair, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Tools Group
  http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/

  The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant:
  http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
until 6 January 2001 at:
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Tuesday, 2 January 2001 11:39:35 UTC