W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2002

RE: More useful information for 3.3

From: Jo Miller <jm@bendingline.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:37:23 -0500
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <p05101400b8b66214e1e9@[10.0.1.4]>
I agree that the author should be free to decide. What I'm saying is 
that we have not articulated that position, and its implications, 
clearly enough in our drafts and discussions.

We must make it plain that providing multiple versions is one way to 
satisfy the checkpoint. Otherwise, authors reading the checkpoint are 
unlikely to understand what their options are. If they mistakenly 
think the checkpoint prohibits them from publishing anything that a 
child could not easily understand, they will howl bloody murder, and 
rightly so.

Jo

At 10:32 AM +1030 3/14/02, Lee Otto wrote:
>Hi,
>I really just wanted to echo Jason's comments. I believe that the issue of
>whether we have a single source web page or multiple versions should not be
>defined in a standard.  It should be the author's decision based on the
>material they are presenting. 
>
>Thanks for your time and attention.
>
>Lee
>lee.otto@aspect.com.au
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jason White [mailto:jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU]
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2002 10:48
>To: Web Content Guidelines
>Subject: Re: More useful information for 3.3
>
>
>Jo Miller writes:
>  >
>  > It comes down to  this: we have not yet really clarified in 3.3
>  > whether we are recommending multiple versions of written content --
>  > that is, whether we want authors to provide alternative versions of
>  > content for people with learning disabilities -- or whether we're
>  > talking about a set of rules to be applied to a single version of
>  > written content.
>
>Shouldn't this be open to the author to decide, depending on the
>nature of the document and the circumstances? Of course we can provide
>appropriate advice, but why constrain the author's options
>unnecessarily by prescribing one or the other of these options under
>particular circumstances?
>
>
>************************************************************************
>MIMEsweeper has been used to check this email for security
>************************************************************************
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 09:37:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:18 GMT