details

1. Inclusion and content of user interface accessibility section
(section 4).

WL:: I think Chuck's idea of a pointer to software accessibility
guidelines is appropriate if we include a strongly worded encouragement
to our audience that any tools produced pay a lot of attention to
accessibility.


2. Default alt-text and place holder alt-text.

If the place holder is "universal" so that it can be flagged and chided,
it *might* be OK but will possibly result in a lot of "place alt here"
annoyances for users.  Default alt-text is probably too unlikely to be
acceptable that *nothing* might be a preferable choice.

3. Input regarding new classification of techniques(to appear in
document draft that should go up today)

WL:: I'll wait and see ("today" has become at least "tomorrow" <grin>) 
On the whole I favor "examples" over "techniques" as the latter tend to
be too vague for implementation.

The overall document passes my muster for presentation at Kyoto as well
as getting early feedback from any willing tool producers - I'd rather
hear about this from Loren and the folks at FrontPage, etc. than from me
or even some of *us*!  How does it "read" to someone from the intended
audience?
-- 
Love.
            ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com

Received on Tuesday, 10 November 1998 11:42:55 UTC