- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:04:28 -0800
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 08:19 AM 12/22/00 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>I would rather see us focus on one or the other, either we are writing as
>if we are writing rules, or we are writing as if we are writing advice.
I think we are writing both "rules" (or suggested rules?) and "advice" -
usually the latter are best found in the techniques/examples parts, but
they inform the former and must be dealt with almost simultaneously. If we
put on our "imperator hats" and decree that henceforth no "altless" (with
due exceptions) will be tolerated we must also be ready to advise how this
is to be done.
So we are writing rules with concommitant advice on how to obey them?
As to the instant discussion of whether "testability" should be a
requirement we'll probably go through the usual discuss/decide/vote cycle.
At this time I'm still voting "aye". Testability is an inherent necessity
for conveying accessibility status, which in turn is a requirement for
accessibility itself. IMO.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Friday, 22 December 2000 12:04:19 UTC