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

Re: Layout tables

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 08:35:04 -0800
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010309081404.0588fd60@mail.gorge.net>
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, "Marti" <marti@agassa.com>, <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Cc: "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 02:45 PM 3/9/01 +0100, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>Feel free to adjust the presentation of your message so that when it 
>bounces through a reasonable listener (defined as "me") it actually says 
>what you mean to say.

Not only can't I do that, IMO it can't be done. In fact it is what is 
consuming us in this undertaking: trying to do what Charles dreamt - "cover 
both parts".

We don't *all* even understand that just because there is only one example 
given of a technique doesn't mean that it is "the" example in other than a 
grammatical parsing - not to mention that it doesn't make it a 
"requirement" even when it's in a non-normative environment. Some of us 
can't even stand to read any of these things if they are presented in some 
"glaring" way.

We can't write the underlying set of guidelines that will at once be 
precise/clear and also be understandable to people who don't even 
understand the conventions of the form we use.

Pidginizing "normative" is not an option. It sounds as attractive as time 
travel but we really don't know how to do either.

What some idiosyncrasy of the process/charters does require is that we are 
in charge of clarification.

What I mean by that is that we are charged not just with writing 
checkpoints but also writing *about* them in some other language - in this 
case "everyday English". But we mustn't confuse the two functions. Writing 
about (or "clarifying") guidelines/checkpoints is *NOT* particularly useful 
for writing them.

I could easily be wrong and perhaps someone will prove me so, but so far 
that hasn't happened. Anywhere. Einstein couldn't do it, and he tried. In 
fact, God couldn't even do it as exemplified in "Thou Shalt Not Kill" 
requiring a bunch of explanatory exceptions.

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Friday, 9 March 2001 12:13:07 GMT

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