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

Re: Reapproaching WCAG 2.0

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:54:36 -0800
Message-Id: <>
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>, "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
At 01:27 AM 1/22/01 +0000, Sean B. Palmer wrote:
>I only expect some useful discussion about this point.

Unfortunately "useful discussion" requires presenting something real 
concrete to act upon. "X proposes, Y disposes" is relevant to this thing.


Terse/Expansive?, etc. - if we leave all the stuff in right after the 
guidelines then the complaint is that it's too dense to wade through, if we 
get it down to briefly emitted grunts then it's not slick enough to skate 
over. All we can do is *read and vote* and modify what we read until the 
vote comes out right.

I prefer that embellishment be elsewhere than in the guidelines proper, 
i.e. link to longer elucidations so that somebody who does have some 
understanding doesn't get a brain hernia from lifting the weighty tome. 
Somewhere between "just the facts, ma'am" and "DUH!".

In other words have your offlist correspondent join the group or present an 
alternative that's more than "general WAI atmosphere" evaluations from 
afar. What happens is that when the chair asks if there are any objections 
there is often a pause during which it seems it's all OK and then just as a 
breath is drawn to announce proceeding with the next issue, someone (often 
Gregg or William) comes up with some off-the-wall insertion that changes 
everything. That's the beauty/problem in achieving consensus.

We just have to keep on keeping on - perseverance furthers!

Received on Sunday, 21 January 2001 20:53:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:36 UTC