- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 07:49:35 -0700
- To: au <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
re Harvey's comments:
I don't feel that substituting one or more variations on "ensure" is
much of a priority but think it should be in wordsmith hands. This
isn't supposed to be literature.
OTOH all the suggestions for changing to positivism and active case are
quite good. Other grammatical and style points seem right on as well as
correcting use of "standards".
I thought the parts about "pre-written" stuff was OK but some
interesting points are raised. I still think that even though some
clip-art may be context-sensitive, in general it will probably be better
to use canned boiler plate than nothing. Creative authors will make
changes anyway, lazier ones will be better served to use what they get
with the multimedia stuff.
I think the level of detail about descriptive text, etc. must be
reserved for techniques and I like the idea of linking to, rather than
in-lining these.
We must focus on the GLs and CPs so discussion on the balance of the
comments should be on the ig list, imho.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Wednesday, 28 April 1999 10:48:58 UTC