- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:23:00 -0800
- To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>, Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 06:22 PM 3/12/01 -0500, Anne Pemberton wrote:
>The guidelines need to address this problem, even if it isn't the easiet
>one to tackle.
I also think this is an important issue.
Having said that I also believe that a formal "checkpoint" is not how we
should address this problem. I have come to believe that checkpoints should
be checkable, though perhaps not entirely automatically, but at least
sensibly. While I may agree that illustrations being called for will lead
to something useful/checkable/effective I am no longer persuaded that
anything in the checkpoint department concerning clear/simple will serve
much purpose.
It is of course mandatory to "address this problem" and our only
disagreement is where/how to do so. I suggest as many of us as feel able to
do so, write some language to deal with this and suggest where it might
best be used. I think the very idea of a checkpoint is undermined by this
particular very important thing being where it is.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Monday, 12 March 2001 19:23:38 UTC