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

Re: 9 August 2001 WCAG WG telecon minutes

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:16:48 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20010810111533.00b2f370@localhost>
To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Cc: Jo Miller <jo@bendingline.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Anne and Charles,

Are your concerns about this wording strong enough that it needs to be 
resolved before the draft is published to TR (hopefully 17 
August)?  Instead, may I put it on the open issues list to discuss after it 
is published?

Thanks,
--wendy

At 09:57 AM 8/10/01 , Anne Pemberton wrote:
>Charles,
>
>         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" ...
>
>                                                 Anne
>
>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)
>>etc
>>
>>cheers
>>
>>Charles
>>
>>(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
>apembert@erols.com
>
>http://www.erols.com/stevepem
>http://www.geocities.com/apembert45

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
/--
Received on Friday, 10 August 2001 11:04:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:11 GMT