- From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
- Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 14:12:15 -0400
- To: "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>
I vote "Aye" -- but see my in-line comments! Al, should we be voting on each of Len's four points -- or do you vote "Nay" to the whole thing. > Al's observation suggests the following process: > > 1. We only include in our recommendations checks that are presently in > the guidelines or techniques document. Okay, but I hope we all agree that unique links that are hidden by ALT="" is a problem that IS covered by the WCAG 1.0! I don't see a problem with breaking down a checkpoint (1.1 in particular) into several sub-categories that can each be better analyzed. > 2. If we have a suggestion for additional rules or guidance, we bring > them to the attention of the author guidelines (AG) group. Correct. My suggestion that we consider not allowing ALT="" is not something that is up for debate -- the point is "settled law". Likewise, the construct of ALT=" " is not up for debate either as it is explicitly prohibited. Both points are covered (Al, thanks for pointing this out) by: http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-TECHS-19990505/#spacer-images I think that Al or Len or Daniel will do a fine job of sharing the job of "parliamentarian" when someone (like me) suggests something that incompatible with W3C published documents. > 3. When AG puts it in the document, we then add it to our techniques doc. > > 4. Discussions about pros and cons of new guidelines/suggestions would > take place in AG space. > > For starters > All in favor email "Aye" > All opposed email "Nay" > > If there are any "Nays" lets etalk about it. > > Len
Received on Friday, 21 May 1999 14:16:35 UTC