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

Re: Illustrations for content

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:18:54 -0700
Message-Id: <a05100317b78f9d906ff3@[]>
To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au, Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
Cc: "Matt May" <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>, "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 10:03 AM +1000 2001/8/03, Jason White wrote:
>Indeed, this point is not open to dispute within the working group;
>and nor do I interpret Kynn's remarks as challenging it.

Thanks, it's not meant to challenge that at all -- but rather to explain
why we are having so many difficulties fitting "good advice" into
"checkpoints."  As I explained in another post, if we are forced to
choose -- due to our structure -- between changing "good advice" into
"over-strict rules" or "nothing on the topic", I would much rather
err on the side of mentioning rather than ignoring such advice.  That's
the main point I was trying to make.

So if we accept my explanation of "why" we are having problems, the
answer simply becomes,

(1) Do we want to mandate illustrations? or
(2) Do we want to provide some way to determine the need for
     illustrations? or
(3) Do we want to leave it out?

As I see it we don't have many other choices, and I would choose (2),
[if possible], then (1), then (3).


Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
Technical Developer Liaison
Reef North America
Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network
Tel +1 949-567-7006
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2001 20:26:26 UTC

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