- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 06:54:08 -0700
- To: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Cc: judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
At 09:38 AM 7/4/01 +1000, Jason White wrote:
>the criteria should not be regarded as "minimum conformance requirements"
>but rather as specifying in greater detail what was needed to satisfy a
>checkpoint
In other words the "criteria", "satisfying", "detail", etc. all are other
words for saying "in other words" in other words.
For some guideline/checkpoint users a very terse (even a single word such
as "repurposable") expression will suffice. The array of possible
expansions (verbal/graphic/sonic/tactile) is large and the decision about
when/where to stop including yet another exemplification/clarification is
the "why" of our existence.
We pretty much got the idea about five years ago. Not much has changed
there. We "bottled it" with reasonable success (there are now enforceable
laws/regulations/policies based on WCAG) a while back, now we are
"purifying" the contents and fooling with the shape/color of the container.
Now that the "accessibility industry" has been viably spawned we can
prettify the message and call it WCAG 2.0?
It has been really wonderful working with all of us on these details. In
recognition of the natural process of ageing and the demands I feel from
other related activities, this is my final post hereto. Thank you all for
putting up with my dotage.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2001 09:53:57 UTC