- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 05:11:04 -0800
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
At 07:51 AM 1/5/01 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>is it more or less what you had in mind?
If that question's for me the scenarios are rapidly becoming what I have in
mind, particularly since they now contain material emphasizing that there's
been (and continues to be) a problem here: not all is sweetness and light
in the accessibility garden.
The self-reflexive part is absent so far as I can tell and I don't really
expect much to be done in that regard but I thought Jonathan might provide
a scenario that used what he's always talking about which might argue for
its inclusion in an otherwise entirely verbal experience for our readers.
The only additional flavors I covet in the document are: 1) more noticeable
i18n; 2) "policy" illustrations to supplement the "bizcase" and "curb-cut"
arguments now peppering the scenarios.
I think this is getting to be both a "good thing" and an exemplar of
effective "concert composition".
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Friday, 5 January 2001 08:10:24 UTC