Re: GL comment

I agree with Chuck. (Including that I needed a step back to see this

Charles McCN.

On Sun, 14 Mar 1999, Chuck Letourneau wrote:

  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
  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."
  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.
  Starling Access Services
   "Access A World Of Possibility"
      Phone: 613-820-2272  FAX: 613-820-6983

--Charles McCathieNevile  
phone: +1 617 258 0992
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA

Received on Sunday, 14 March 1999 16:05:15 UTC