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

Re: Call for review of WCAG 2.0 draft

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:35:18 -0000
Message-ID: <00fb01c0976d$67d4c280$efd893c3@z5n9x1>
To: "Steven McCaffrey" <SMCCAFFR@MAIL.NYSED.GOV>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Do I go to the HTML, XML, SVG, etc techniques document?
> If I don't even know what these languages are and have never
> seen examples of these how will I know which link to choose?
> What level of knowledge is assumed?

This is why I like William's terse version [1] so much. It's better
integrated than the current draft, and yet it carries less information. A
HyperLink is a link to much more information... and by letting people
choose the parts they want to cogitate, rather than setting it all out and
having people skip bits, you get mroe value out of it.

We have guidelines... those are the bare backbones. Then we have
checkpoints... those are still essential. But then we have optional bits:
[background] [reasoning] [techniques] and so on, and all of these should be
linked, rather than concisified and crammed into a small bit of space on
the document.

[1] http://rdf.pair.com/xguide.htm

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
[ :name "Sean B. Palmer" ] :hasHomepage <http://infomesh.net/sbp/> .
Received on Thursday, 15 February 2001 11:35:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:09 GMT