be it resolved?

There are two major discussions going on that sort of impede reaching
last call in a timely fashion: where to put current guideline 1; what to
say about configurability (and where to say it).

The placement of any guideline apparently has several implications. As
I've spoken and listened to the various arguments they all seem totally
unimportant compared with getting the thing done.  Any sane reader of
the document will read it all and the sequence will have very little, if
any import to someone seriously attempting to design an authoring tool.
If anybody has any passionately held reason for the order in which to
place the guidelines, go ahead on. Priority is far more significant than
placement and my passion for the importance of what is now guideline 1
does not require a "line in the sand" for its position.

A little history about configurability: the "forces" demanding
configurability are seemingly now the ones sort of opposing its mandate.
If it's acceptable to those who thought absence of configurability was
"economic suicide" to absent its inclusion as a checkpoint, great! I
wouldn't mind a tool that didn't permit publishing inaccesible
materials. After hearing all arguments I strongly agree that one of the
goals of our recommendation should *not* be configurability because that
only marginally assists accessibility in some really obscure way. So I
come down on the side of explicitly permitting (but not requiring)
configurability of alerts, prompts, etc.

I really believe that we are at the point of honing grammar and that
shouldn't impede a move to last call as soon as procedurally possible.

-- 
Love.
            ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com

Received on Monday, 30 August 1999 11:46:44 UTC