- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 10:36:16 -0800
- To: "jonathan chetwynd" <jc@signbrowser.org.uk>, "Chuck Hitchcock" <chitchcock@cast.org>, "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@crosslink.net>, "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>, "w3c" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 05:24 PM 11/27/00 +0000, jonathan chetwynd wrote:
>However it seems that the wai staffers are determined to limit themselves
>to the textual equivalents, and be satisfied with that.
I. They don't "limit themselves" in the sense that there's some inner voice
saying "let's mess with Jonathan's mind and not put up any graphics."
II. They aren't "satisfied" with the absence of graphics.
III. They keep having people throw stuff on the table but disappear when
it's time to clean it up.
There is always the possibility of emplacing "gratuitous graphics" but that
would evoke just as much rancorous uproar and serve none well.
Point to graphics that satisfy what you think needs satisfying, including
where it's to go. If it works I assure you we will all salute it. If you
expect anyone to believe that *ANY* graphics will suffice then I fear for
your argument. If the meaning is obtained just from the presence then it
might as well be a "decorative icon" and the judges as to which ones to
select are very hard to find.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Monday, 27 November 2000 13:37:05 UTC