- From: Chuck Letourneau <cpl@starlingweb.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 13:02:24 -0500
- To: love26@gorge.net
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Thanks for your note William. I was on the Education and Outreach call as well, and heard the discussion around this point. While at first skeptical about the need for clarification, I tried stepping back to look at the statement from the point of view of a relative newcomer. I now think you are correct. Someone might think the Guidelines are hinting (and being coy by not mentioning names) that those machine verification applications are what we are referring to. I would support asking the editors to add a sentence of clarification. Might it be as simple as restating the existing sentence? "The checkpoints have been written so that it will be possible [for a person/an author] to verify when they have been satisfied." Comments? Chuck Letourneau Co-Chair, Page Author GL WG At 12/03/99 10:44 AM , William Loughborough wrote: >Under Priorities: > >"The checkpoints have been written so that it will be possible to verify >when they have been satisfied. " > >As discussed in an EOWG telecon a possible clarifying statement might >minimize the perhaps too optimistic hopes raised in the above quote. > >Somehting like: Although an author's Website may have its conformance >with many checkpoints verified *objectively* by a tool such as Bobby, >there are also some checkpoints (e.g. "provide textual equivalents") >that, although their presence may be verified mechanically, only the >subjectively applied skills of a human author can approve. > >I assume that if you want to explicitly include this caveat you can find >a *real* wordsmith like Ian to state it better. >-- >Love. > ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE >http://dicomp.pair.com > ---- Starling Access Services "Access A World Of Possibility" e-mail: info@starlingweb.com URL: http://www.starlingweb.com Phone: 613-820-2272 FAX: 613-820-6983
Received on Sunday, 14 March 1999 12:59:25 UTC