Re: "intro"

That is why we have information hiding. You have the easy to read stuff on
the page, and then at the bottom of each box, a link to 'techniques',
'complete W3C Guideline', and perhaps 'examples'.

In other words, keep the more complex information off these pages but have
easy and pointed access to them. It also lets people know, that just reading
this site does not give them all the possible information on the subject.

See u
L
-----Original Message-----
From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>; Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date: Thursday, September 07, 2000 4:29 AM
Subject: Re: "intro"


>JW:: "What we now need is an explanation, expressed in more formal
language,
>that can be included in the guidelines and which will be as precise as
>possible."
>
>WL: I think one of the problems we have is that when we write for ourselves
>formality and precision are called for; when we write for people who have
>trouble understanding the guidelines formality and precision are equated
>with opacity and inaccessibility (in the "intellectual" sense).
>
>Although we and more particularly EO threaten to make the materials more
>"clear and simple" it is still a pretty speech with no music if you take my
>meaning.
>
>Of course there is a place for pedantry and the language usually found in
>academia, but there's some question if this is that place. The guidelines
>proper, no argument. They are necessary (and probably necessarily in this
>form) but they clearly aren't sufficient. Our intended audience is not
other
>members of our choir but people who want to comply, conform, etc. but when
>they try to find out how are faced with the language of professors.
>
>--
>Love.
>           ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
>
>

Received on Thursday, 7 September 2000 02:59:43 UTC