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

Re: RE Checkpoint 3.4 again

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 15:33:07 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Cc: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "GLWAI Guidelines WG \(GL - WAI Guidelines WG\)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 02:27 PM 7/30/2001 , Anne Pemberton wrote:
>         Guideline 1 uses the term "equivalent" .... changing it to "parallels" in Guideline 3 would be confusing. But in the discussion, if parallels helps comprehension, use it ....

I dunno if I want a change in the guideline text or not, but I think it
is important to realize that it's very hard to get hung up on "equivalent"
but less problematic to talk about "parallel."

Is a transcript "equivalent" to a movie?  Are a book-on-tape and a printed
book "equivalent"?  It's hard to say; it's problematic.  If a book and an
audio book are "equivalent", does that mean that an audio book read by
Patrick Stewart and an audio book read by me are "equivalent"?  (Most
people would likely say not.)

So when we are talking about "alternative versions" we actually mean
parallel versions -- which accomplish the same thing, convey the same
content, perform the same functions -- rather than equivalent versions.


Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
Technical Developer Liaison
Reef North America
Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network
Tel +1 949-567-7006
Received on Monday, 30 July 2001 18:39:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:38 UTC