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

Re: examples of a variety of sites that include illu

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 09:21:40 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: joeclark@qube.seeto.com (Joe Clark), w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
          I don't think you'll find your "break the standard" case within 
any topic of human learning --- and that's a pretty broad category. About 
the only type of text I can think of that isn't routinely illustrated (if 
not online, in real life), is the novel, and sometimes short stories 
....  But, with the possibility of a publisher illustrating a novel in the 
online version since it won't increase printing costs, but will increase 
readership (downloads, payments, etc.)  illustrated novels may be just 
around the corner. How will the guidelines address accessibility issues 
through this progression if the guidelines keep pretending this isn't 


At 10:42 PM 8/2/01 -0400, Joe Clark wrote:
>Physics sites are actually not a good test case, where we define "test 
>case" as something likely to break the proposed standard. I would look up 
>philosophy, linguistics, and history papers.

Anne Pemberton

Received on Friday, 3 August 2001 09:26:20 UTC

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