W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > January to March 1999

Re: waicard9

From: Geoff Freed <Geoff_Freed@wgbh.org>
Date: 3 Feb 1999 09:33:26 -0400
Message-ID: <n1294087697.68476@wgbh.org>
To: dd@w3.org, "US Mint - Robert Neff" <Robert.Neff@usmint.treas.gov>, w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
        Reply to:   RE>>waicard9 

Taken in order...

1.  I was under the impression that we would be updating this card as technology improved.  If this is actually the case, then we should be using revision numbers.

2.  I think sometimes "where practical" can be interpreted as "where convenient."  I vote for leaving "where practical" out.

As for the multimedia statement:

Multimedia: Provide captioning and transcripts of audio, 
 descriptions of video, and accessible versions when
 non-W3C inaccessible formats are used. 

This sounds to me like we're saying all non-W3C formats are inaccessible.  how about...

"...and accessible versions when non-W3C or inaccessible formats are used."

Geoff Freed
NCAM
--------------------------------------
Date: 2/3/99 9:18 AM
To: Geoff Freed
From: dd@w3.org

> 1.  Can we put a revision control number on the cars.  Very small print and
> possibly in on corner.  I fear that as these circulate and revisions are
> made, we may not know which version of which we are speaking.

I think it's possible but I wonder how useful it will prove to
be. First I think we're not going to have many versions of this card,
maybe 2 or 3 at most. I may be wrong. In any case, whatever feedback
we receive is going to be specific, as in "I don't undestand what
'read out of context' means" and we will know which version we're
talking about. I don't expect software-like report ala "tips 3 on
page 2 is unclear", which would indeed call for a version id.
 
> 2.  Use CSS for layout and style.  I could not agree more with this.
> Suggest,
> "Use CSS for layout and style where practical", or

Hard to define "practical". I would argue it is practical to use CSS
today, for maintenance of one organization's graphic chart for
instance. It is not practical if you want your data to appear the same 
on all browser in the world. 

The guidelines use "wherever possible", that we could reuse here. What
others think ?
 
> 3.  Last item, wish we had room to say something about also testing on voice
> web browsers and screen readers.

We discussed that point last week, in the context of removing "Test
with images, sound, and animation off." The consensus was that
evaluation tools provide this service. 


------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by wgbh.org with ADMIN;3 Feb 1999 09:15:25 U
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by www19.w3.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) id JAA21533;
	Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:12:49 -0500 (EST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:12:49 -0500 (EST)
Resent-Message-Id: <199902031412.JAA21533@www19.w3.org>
Message-Id: <199902031412.PAA03374@www47.inria.fr>
From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Reply-To: dd@w3.org
To: "Robert Neff" <rneff@moon.jic.com>
cc: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org, "US Mint - Robert Neff" <Robert.Neff@usmint.treas.gov>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 15:12:34 +0100
Subject: Re: waicard9 
Resent-From: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org> archive/latest/411
X-Loop: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
Sender: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org
Resent-Sender: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
Received on Wednesday, 3 February 1999 09:33:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:27 UTC