- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:43:17 -0800
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
At 03:27 PM 1/22/01 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>Maybe we don't mean equivalent at all.
If a person can find out when the train's coming, order flowers, or get a
synopsis of "War and Peace" using the alternate version.
Ultimately it's pragmatics at its best. Kelly Ford had a problem ordering
groceries and if the alternate version allows him to do so then it is for
his purposes equivalent.
Or some such. I don't think he'll be as concerned about sunsets but might
well like to know something about why they have some emotive affect on the
retinally-blessed?
Maybe it falls into the "I don't know what it means but I know it when I
encounter it" category. But I'll bet there's widespread agreement in a lot
of cases as to whether an "equivalent site" works and we hope to codify
what it takes to make how to do that clear.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Monday, 22 January 2001 19:42:17 UTC