Re: Techniques for 3.1 (get alternative content)

Sounds like a great idea.

Charles

On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Jan Richards wrote:

  Hi all,
  
  Looking at the voluminous postings for Checkpoints 1.3, 3.1 and 3.2, I
  can't help but think there must be a better way.  After all, the
  techniques we are using as a basis ALREADY appear in the WCAG techniques
  note!
  
  Perhaps the answer is that the techniques for ATAG should not focus so
  much on how to meet the WCAG guidelines (they have techniques for that
  already).  Instead our techniques should focus on ways that tools can
  meet the ATAG guidelines most effectively.  This would include pointing
  out how multiple ATAG guidelines can be met simultaneously, to what
  extent certain types of things can be automated, suggestions on what to
  tell authors so that they write quality descriptions, etc.
  
  Of course, we can still narrow down the applicable WCAG checkpoints and
  techniques (ex. the priority of ATAG Checkpoint 3.1 is relative but it
  only applies only WCAG Guideline 1).
  
  What do other people think?
  
  Cheers,
  Jan
  
  -- 
  Jan Richards
  jan.richards@utoronto.ca
  Access Software Designer
  Adaptive Technology Resource Centre
  University of Toronto
  (416) 946-7060
  

--
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia

Received on Monday, 21 February 2000 16:04:26 UTC