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 14:28:05 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20010810142510.00a2bc70@pop.erols.com>
To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Cc: Jo Miller <jo@bendingline.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
It's not enough of a concern to hold up publishing the draft. Putting on 
open issues to discuss later will be fine. For me, it's mostly a matter of 
the grammar. As Charles also said, more heads in the discussion may help 
find the solution.

                                         Anne

At 11:16 AM 8/10/01 -0400, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>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
>/--

Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Friday, 10 August 2001 14:35:18 GMT

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