W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: Editorial: Checkpoint 2.1

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 17:06:59 -0500
Message-ID: <3880EF83.F90FEDBB@w3.org>
To: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@ACM.org>
CC: User Agent Guidelines Emailing List <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Harvey Bingham wrote:
> 
> Checkpoint 2.1 Ensure that the user has access to all content, including
> alternative equivalent representations for content.
> 
> The meaning of "equivalent" from Random House Dictionary:
> 1. equal in value, measure, force, significance, etc.
> 2. corresponding in position, function., etc.
> 
> All we assert is that comparable information is available, differently
> represented. I think that "equivalent" asserts equality or correspondence,
> both of which seem beyond what we expect.

I disagree. In the glossary under "Alternative Equivalents
for Content", we say:

<BLOCKQUOTE>
In the context of this document, the equivalent 
must fulfill essentially the same function for the person
with a disability (at least insofar as is feasible, 
given the nature of the disability and the state 
of technology), as the "primary" content does for the person 
without any disability. 
</BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this explains what we are trying to accomplish.

 - Ian

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Saturday, 15 January 2000 17:07:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:49:51 GMT