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

RE: Proposal: sufficiency criteria for WCAG 2.0

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 09:01:08 -0500
To: "'William Loughborough'" <love26@gorge.net>, "'Web Content Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: "'judy Brewer'" <jbrewer@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000501c1055b$09935d60$b2176880@trace.wisc.edu>
William,

Say it ain't so.  (Though you deserve a rest for all you have done.)

William, I think I speak for us all when I say that you have been a
major force and a major intellectual anchor for this group.  Your wisdom
(and wit) have both served us well.    We will miss you dearly.

And if you ever feel the urge to peruse these streams again,  and toss
in a tidbit (or a hook) please do not let your retirement statement
stand in the way.  You are always welcome back.   To visit, to skulk, or
to toss one in.

This won’t be the only good bye and thanks from us... but as you enjoy
your 4th,  (your independence day)  know how much you have contributed,
and how grateful we are.

With warmest regards and regrets.

Gregg
-- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Human Factors 
Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis. 
Director - Trace R & D Center 
Gv@trace.wisc.edu <mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <http://trace.wisc.edu/> 
FAX 608/262-8848  
For a list of our listserves send “lists” to listproc@trace.wisc.edu
<mailto:listproc@trace.wisc.edu> 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of William Loughborough
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 8:54 AM
To: Web Content Guidelines
Cc: judy Brewer
Subject: Re: Proposal: sufficiency criteria for WCAG 2.0

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 Thursday, 5 July 2001 10:05:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:11 GMT