- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 12:49:01 -0700
- To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU, Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 03:42 PM 9/8/01 -0400, Al Gilman wrote: >Does this make any sense? Eminent good sense. The justifiable complaints about WCAG 1.0 were directed at *its* accessibility/usability and more of the same will suffer the same. That (normative semi-regulatory-sounding) already got done and has led to a spate of referring-to-it laws/regulations/policies which, not that they are engraved in marble don't need a lot of chipping or even cleaning. *They* got the idea. "Normative" is no longer in the hunt but "informative" is de rigeur - which is what CMcCN has been saying over on ATAG - "keep those techniques coming, folks". As Trummy Young sang "'Tain't Whatcha Do, It's the Way Howja Do It - That's What Gets Results." If you would hear this use the "result-oriented" link at http://uwimp.com/tetra.htm -- Love. EACH UN-INDEXED/ANNOTATED WEB POSTING WE MAKE IS TESTAMENT TO OUR HYPOCRISY
Received on Saturday, 8 September 2001 15:46:38 UTC