- From: zara <catherine.roy@w3qc.org>
- Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 19:16:47 -0800 (PST)
- To: "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <akirkpatrick@macromedia.com>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote: > I agree Makoto - there is a disconnect that would be created when > captions and audio descriptions (needed by users to gain access to > content) are pushed to L2 and valid code (which doesn't always affect > accessibility) is pushed to L1. I can understand why captions and audio > descriptions might not both be L1 due to the difficulty of creating > them, but it seems that if practical reality is not considered at all > then we'll see captions and audio descriptions (live and recorded) and > valid code all at L1 - I don't think that is the right approach, but do > think that developers and legislators reading this document will expect > to be able to understand why different items are at different levels and > to what extent the placement is practical or hopeful. Andrew is right. Developers and legislators will want to understand why things are « ranked » the way they are. Often, they do not necessarily want the details, just valid arguments to justify their choices (this is especially true of legislators). And this is where people like me usually come in. If the reason basically concerns how easy or not it is to do (as opposed to how necessary it is), I imagine that we can guess as to what will and will not get done. I understand that we need to be practical. However, we also need to be realistic as to what our users need, which is something that I am sure all members of this group keep at the forefront of their work. Catherine -- Catherine Roy, consultante www.catherine-roy.net 514.525.9490
Received on Sunday, 6 November 2005 03:16:51 UTC