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

re: a possibly contentious suggestion

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:11:22 -0500 (EST)
To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
cc: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9902162235560.21956-100000@tux.w3.org>
I think that the principles given are the complete set, although I have a
nagging feeling I forgot one. So I am expecting at most one more similar

I expect some participation from the audience - people who write
applications are not fools, although by and large they have never run
across accessibility (any more than the people we cite in the 'explain
accessibility in help files' checkpoint). I think what we are striving for
is a document which can be read and give somebody a terse but accurate
explanation of what needs to be done. I think we should also outline some
strategies which could be used, but I would prefer them to be in a
separate techniques document.


On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, William Loughborough wrote:

  CMcCN: " I feel that something along these lines justifies the volume it
  adds to the document."
  WL:: How many similar instances are proposed?  Enough to warrant yet
  another document?  Or perhaps a major expansion of the Introduction? 
  Need guidelines serve as be-all/end-all exemplars of completeness or can
  we assume some participation from the audience?  

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://purl.oclc.org/net/charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 1999 13:11:29 UTC

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