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

RE: NEW DRAFT - 31 July 2001

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 19:33:13 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Joel Sanda <joels@ecollege.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

         If the guidelines group included a person or persons who needed 
this information in  alternative format as we are debating the issues 
(which would be true if we had some dyslexic folks in the discussion), I 
would don my handy "Superwoman" cape, a handful of fiberfill for the true 
Linda Carter Look!, and leap into action making the graphics to communicate 
with this person/s ....

         Seriously, it certainly will be as difficult to achieve a 
consensus on graphics to illustrate the words as to craft the words 
themselves, until the word are decided on, it is perhaps futile to try to 
capture it in graphics unless there is a part of the audience who needs it 
... I'm not the best illustrator around - my experience is limited to the 
efforts a teacher puts into illustrating something she is teaching ...


At 03:59 PM 7/31/01 -0600, Joel Sanda wrote:
>Anne -
>The idea of content stabilization is a valid point, but what if content
>changes are frequent? Any content that changes will need to be designed in
>alternative formats.
>Take the WCAG 2.0 document. Is there, since the content isn't stable and
>always changing, no way to build it so it can conform to the WCAG 2.0 until
>it is stable? That means that, as a working document, it cannot be
>accessible, at least according to the WCAG 2.0.
>My concern is the way 3.4 is written now the group working on the WCAG 2.0
>can't adhere to the point while the document is in a working draft. What if
>someone on the group had to have content in a form specified by 3.4, but
>can't get it because the content isn't stable?
>Joel Sanda
>Product Manager
> > p. 303.873.7400 x3021
> > f.  303.632.1721
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anne Pemberton [mailto:apembert@erols.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 3:27 PM
>To: Wendy A Chisholm; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>Subject: Re: NEW DRAFT - 31 July 2001
>Wendy, Paul, and all,
>          I have absolutely no objections to anything in the newest
>draft.  I will try to read it through tomorrow and give you some help on at
>least one of the places you asked for help, and, if no one tells you first,
>there are a few typo/grammar errors that I spotted reading through it.
>          I am so grateful for Paul Bohman's version .... his separating
>these documents into usable segments helped me understand the organization
>of the document and it was easier to use this time than previous -- just
>cause I've seen Paul's organization ... <grin> ...
>          Wendy, Joel Sanda asks about illustrating the illustration
>content. Can you tell him where to see what I did last time we were asked
>to do that? We need to stabilize the text before we begin to build the
>illustrations. Is your illustrator joining us?
>          I look forward to this draft passing the consensus so we don't
>have to hang a label over this one "under construction" ... with the little
>earthmover icon!....
>                                                  Anne
>At 01:45 PM 7/31/01 -0400, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >A new draft is available.  The 26 July 2001 version did not have updates
> >to checkpoints 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4. This draft updates
> >those, as well as incorporates discussion on checkpoint 2.1 from the 26
> >July 2001 telecon on the 26 July 2001 working draft.
> >
> >Again, I suggest people read the change log first:
> >http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/change-history.html
> >
> >I have identified several issues again and highlighted major changes, such
> >as combining checkpoints.
> >
> >I included my proposed checkpoint 3.4 with some minor changes.  I look
> >forward to responses on this.  If it is too controversial, I will revert
> >back to the previous draft or suggest people provide proposals for
> >something that is more acceptable.  We are working to publish a public
> >working draft on 10 August 2001.  We don't need to have consensus for a
> >working draft, but we also don't want to publish anything that contains
> >substantial errors or disagreement.
> >
> >If possible, we might just put a placeholder for checkpoint 3.4 that says,
> >"A checkpoint on providing illustrations will go here. The working group
> >does not have sufficient agreement to publish anything at this time."
> >
> >The draft itself is available at:
> >http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20010731.html
> >
> >For the latest draft, always refer to:
> >http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/
> >
> >This redirects to the current version.
> >
> >I look forward to your comments.
> >--wendy
> >--
> >wendy a chisholm
> >world wide web consortium
> >web accessibility initiative
> >seattle, wa usa
> >/--
>Anne Pemberton

Anne Pemberton

Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2001 19:51:33 UTC

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