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

Re: Proposal: checkpoint 3.4

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 16:51:20 -0700
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20010730164309.015b8ef0@garth.idyllmtn.com>
To: Joe Clark <joeclark@contenu.nu>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 04:26 PM 7/30/2001 , Joe Clark wrote:
>>Here are the things that I have merged:
>>1. WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 14.2 Supplement text with graphic or auditory
>>presentations where they will facilitate comprehension of the page.
>>[Priority 3]
>Let's rewrite that to "facilitate comprehension."

Good point.  We want to say "of the content" not "of the page".  A
page is just one construct in one modality, but you can't be sure
you will always be dealing with "pages" on the web, or that content
will necessarily break across "pages" the same in each modality.

>I was not aware that any individual party working on WCAG 2.0 had a veto. That is essentially what you are saying. Anne's extremist views on requiring illustrations and other "non-text" content for "text elements" are very poorly supported. In fact, there might not be anyone else on the planet who supports everything she does. Why are we rejigging all the rules of consultation just to please Anne? She is no more important than any other contributor to this process (and I do mean any).

I don't think that's what's happening; I think Anne brought up an
objection (valid one, too) and requested a re-write.  Wendy is
presenting a re-write based on that objection; if the re-write doesn't
satisfy the objection, then it's not worth all of us even considering.

Once we know whether or not the proposal fits the objection, it can
then go to the rest of the working group for discussion.

This is similar to what we did earlier this month with "auditory
description" and you/Geoff.  Since you and Geoff were the ones suggesting
there was a problem, any -proposed- (but not yet -approved-) solution
should at the very least meet your requirements before being considered
by the group.  You and Anne (and Geoff, I guess) don't hold any "veto"
power, but there's just little point in proposing something as a
remedy to your (or her) objection unless it passes your (or her)
muster first.

To me this is how the working group can (and should) work; it builds
consensus and considers all viewpoints.  Wendy is acting as a
facilitator here, to bring out Anne's ideas into a proposal that we
can all consider or reject as we will.  Nobody is saying Anne -- or
anyone else -- is more or less important.

--Kynn

PS:  I'm not sure it's fair to label Anne's views as "extremist"
      here, because those views could easily be tossed at nearly all
      of us, especially when you look at the larger context outside
      of the web accessibility sphere.  "Kynn believes _blind people_
      should be able to access _all web applications?!_  What an
      _extremist!_  Surely nobody else on the planet believes _that_!"

--
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
Technical Developer Liaison
Reef North America
Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network
Tel +1 949-567-7006
________________________________________
BUSINESS IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL.
________________________________________
http://www.reef.com
Received on Monday, 30 July 2001 19:54:13 GMT

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