- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 07:50:28 -0800
- To: au <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
CMcN:: "I have noted in the intro to guideline 4 that things should be
done automatically _where possible_..."
WL: That may be fine but it plays back into Phill's next question "where
is it possible?" - and rightly so, I think. I believe we must all
re-read the guidelines document with a slightly different *attitude*
than we've been using: pretend to be a developer trying to use this
document to design a triple-AAA conformant tool and see if there are any
ambiguities or impossibilities assumed in the way the original wording
"must be designed so that they can automatically identify inaccessible
markup..." pretends that such identification can be done (ever?). Only
if we look at this from the point of view of those who must abide it can
we avoid a very proper "digging in of the heels" by those most affected.
If we can make adequate editorial changes to rectify these issues we
won't have to recycle the document. Hence I raise the question: "is
_where possible_ sufficiently explanatory?"
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Thursday, 2 December 1999 10:51:29 UTC