Re: Comments on 26 July 2000 WCAG 2.0 Draft

KB:: "The purpose of the WCAG document _must_ be to tell the web
designer 'how to do the right thing'"

WL: If you would just say "*A* purpose..." we'd needn't quarrel <g>.

KB:: "I agree with you that the Principles are vitally important and
should be engraved in marble, but I think the name of that marble
is "a separate W3C Note" rather than letting these vague theoretical
guidelines detract from the focus of the WCAG document."

WL: The formatting should be accomplished by using a query template so
that if you don't want to read the marble or boiler plate, you can just
"get to the good parts". Obviously it is both daunting and boring to
have to download and skip through a bunch of boring stuff about the
document instead of just getting whatever parts you think of as "the
document" - which in the case of your harrassed Web designer is "where's
the code to provide a d-link until longdesc is supported by browsers",

Actually much of what you think of as "the" document is already there in
the techniques document but it is somewhat buried in what you think of
as chaff and I as wheat! We've been and continue to work on that part,
but the "marble" hasn't been adequately addressed and since it is the
mother lode of this mine, I thought that's what we were undertaking.

Organizing all this so it is (lower-case) accessible is another task
but, please let's not argue whether we need "principles" but instead get
on with perfecting them.


Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2000 09:43:49 UTC