- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 18:37:09 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Joel Sanda <joels@ecollege.com>
- cc: "'Anne Pemberton'" <apembert@erols.com>, "'Jo Miller'" <jo@bendingline.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Joel Sanda wrote: [snip] I suppose 3.4 makes perfect sense. But I would really hate to be on the group that wrote a techniques document for that ;-) I question, though, how feasible it is to implement this. CMN Bad news mate. You are on that group - its name is WCAG (well, Web Content Accessibiltiy Guidelines Working Group really, but for the purposes of this email...) <grin/> JS Finally, I'm assuming there will be WAI/WCAG icons available to indicate compliance with the WCAG 2.0. Those are nice and a good evangelizing tool. But to require - and this is how I'm using the term "enforce" - 3.4 compliance for use of the icons will mean hardly any use of the icons. In other words - there is an evangelization of these guidelines to a certain degree - I'm assuming that's what the Charter means when it refers to the "efficacy" of the recommendations. The inclusion of 3.4, as it now stands, jeopardizes that goal, in my opinion. CMN I don't think 3.4 as it now stands is good enough for a final release document. On the other hand, I think it is better than nothing, and that with nothing there WCAG 2 is not good enough for realease as a final document - it doesn't fulfil the requiremetns set for it. There is clearly work to do here. I think that we are slowly moving forwards, and that we are spending too much time deciding whether or not we like the idea of doing the work and too little time actually doing it. (I know that is a fair assessment of my time spent on the issue) cheers Charles McCN
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2001 18:37:11 UTC