RE: Attachments Re: edits.doc

Thanks, Jason.  

Under Guideline 3.1, Level 3, Success Criterion #4: I think we missed a proposed rewrite to the first item uner the heading "Vocabulary."  The The curent wording is as follows:
<begin current wording for 3.1 L3 SC4 first item under Vocabulary>
* Using vocabulary that is likely to be familiar to intended readers.


<begin proposed rewrite- includes a JS note>
:  Using  vocabulary that is common in the field or discipline to which the resource belongs (for example, integrative biology, marketing professionals, civil engineering, sales, human resource management)

JS note (this note is not for inclusion in TR draft, just to explain change):  Gregg had pointed out that phrases like "intended readers," "intended audience," etc., are not testable. The proposed rewrite above gets WCAG WG and accessibility evaluators out of the business of recovering authorial intention but allows them to acknowledge that some resources belong to highly specialized fields with their own specialized vocabularies; it doesn't require that all resources be written for the mythical "general audience."
</end proposed rewrite>
"Good design is accessible design." 
Please note our new name and URL!
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/


 



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jason White
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 3:22 am
To: Charles McCathieNevile
Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Attachments Re: edits.doc


Here is an attempt at conversion to HTML. I haven't edited or cleaned the output of the conversion software.

Received on Friday, 5 March 2004 09:21:17 UTC