- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:20:36 +0000
- CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 18/12/2012 21:16, accessys@smart.net wrote: > it "May" be acceptable if coded properly and probably meets WCAG 2.0 but > that doesn't make it "accessible" So in essence you're saying: even if it meets WCAG 2.0 that doesn't make it "accessible"? Or am I misinterpreting your words again? I'm honestly trying to understand why we're still discussing this, in light of the question posed in this thread - which I believe we've not exhaustively answered as "yes" - unless your point of view is that WCAG 2.0 is not good enough to determine "true" accessibility, in which case I'd like to ask what changes you'd propose to WCAG 2.0. P -- Patrick H. Lauke ______________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ ______________________________________________________________ twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke ______________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2012 21:21:20 UTC