- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 05:38:01 -0700
- To: au <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
We've been dealing with minutiae in the guidelines document (except, of course the important techniques/samples part) for quite some time. I think what Jason White says (in a slightly different context) applies: JW:: "It is easy to read absurdities into the guidelines by considering individual checkpoints in abstraction from their context in the document as a whole. However, this is not an appropriate strategy of interpretation. I do not wish to imply that anyone has been misinterpreting the text deliberately. Rather, I would suggest that the tendency to concentrate on each checkpoint in isolation, for the purpose of judging compliance, naturally leads to the overlooking of important contextual details." We should opt to get going in the last call department because within the core of the WG we are pretty ready. In fact IMHO we are much farther along than the GLs were when they began the rather intense and lengthy process with IG and the director. We are quibbling about words like "nature" and just one step back and seeing that it's all now reasonably well covered in just 7 (count 'em - seven) guidelines is a job well done up to this point. -- Love. ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Thursday, 8 July 1999 08:37:45 UTC