- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:49:13 -0400 (EDT)
- To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
I'm not certain that the splitis the best way to do it. I would prefer a reminder note in the checkpoint that access to editing and rendering objects must be accessible, so there must be appropriate equivalents for visual representations, but I would hope that 1.1 already covers the requirement to make things available in an accessible way in general. Charles McCN On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, William Loughborough wrote: In regard to having a checkpoint "split" from 1.3 that specifies "non- visual" format availability, I just wonder how the authoring tool will do that? I understand how the author's screen reader will do it if it's text. I seem to remember "textual equivalent" from somewhere in the document and that might be more appropriate? -- Love ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE --Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +1 617 258 0992 http://www.w3.org/People/Charles W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI MIT/LCS - 545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139, USA
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 1999 13:49:17 UTC