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

Re: 9 August 2001 WCAG WG telecon minutes

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:57:25 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Cc: Jo Miller <jo@bendingline.com>, Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

         Do we need "as possible" as a qualifier, or should that be in the 
techniques as well?

         Oh, I liked the first two of your techniques, but think the one 
about pronouns belongs in a grammar lesson instead of "techniques" ...


At 09:13 AM 8/10/01 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>I agree that the checkpoint text is still a bit too complex to be understood
>consistently. I would propose dropping the "appropriate" from the text for
>now, and including it in the discussion material.
>In the  sufficiency criteria we should be able to provide some ways of
>measuring whether something meets the checkpoint.
>For example (this is a 2-minute exercise and I don't think these are good
>enough, but they might give an idea what I mean):
(techniques deleted)
>(I haven't hung up my writing instructor's hat, or my translator's hat, but
>they are a bit dusty...)
>On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Anne Pemberton wrote:
>   Jo,
>            You were right to raise the issue on the telecon, but I don't
>   think the fix worked.  The sentence is an important checkpoint, and if it
>   has to be "read right", then it hasn't been written "clearly and simply"
>   yet....
>            Is it necessary to say "as is possible" as well as "as is
>   appropriate" ? Can we omit "as is possible" and leave it "Write clearly and
>   simply as appropriate for the site."  .... I think someone mentioned "as
>   possible" leaves a checkpoint open to abuse.

Anne Pemberton

Received on Friday, 10 August 2001 10:10:20 UTC

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