- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 04:08:23 -0400 (EDT)
- To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- cc: au <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
William, Following consultation with Jutts I have not made the suggetsed amendments in the most recent draft. In the case of the first suggestion I agree with you, but The abstract has been identified by Judy as a part that she thinks should be reviewed, so I will await her suggestions before we play with it (assuming they will come in time for next week). In the case of the others, they are there based on suggestions that it was easier to understand if they were seperated out (tersification can go too far, apparently *grin*), except for the last suggestion about "by that date"; it will be changed before we get to a recommendation (obviously) so I didn't think it was really important for now. If you think these decision are more tan editorial, please say so.Looking forward to review of the guidelines cheers Charles McCN On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, William Loughborough wrote: In the second paragraph of the Abstract I think to emphasize Kynn's point that such items as tutorials are a part of the documentation that "help files" should be parenthetically (or elsewise) expanded to include *any* aspect of documentation - and for some reason I would prefer "only" to "merely". And not to put too fine a point on it but "would result" instead of "will result" would be more realistic. In the intro the second and third bullets after "including:" might be made into one since saving as HTML is an inherent part of translating documents. "It does design issues..." seems like a typo for "It does address issues..."? I really want to strongly second Gregory's motion raised in regard to whether certain things (in this case ABBR and ACRONYM stuff) is "essential to accessibility". The point that we are dealing with "stifling inaccessibility" is more cogent. Just as the proper use of structural markup to assist in more "level playing field" conditions, many things that we are deciding are "not essential" depend on whose ox is being gored. While we can't directly do much about blind guys' inability to make "overview scans", whenever we can, we should - it's why we go through this exercise. The resistance with which a suggestion to work without mouse/monitor for a day is met is adequate proof of all this - once you've done this, you never want to do it again. We (that's the blindless "we") *think* we know what it's like to eschew monitors but the reality is a bit more daunting when it's actual experience instead of a "mental experiment". The upshot of this is that "beneficial" and "essential" as used in the priority definitions should be very carefully evaluated in every case. I think the "Note" explaining "spelling out" is gratuitous. Finally, I suggest dele-ing "by that date". I'll get to the Guidelines themselves next time. -- Love. ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE http://dicomp.pair.com --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 Thursday, 19 August 1999 04:08:25 UTC