- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 00:40:15 -0400 (EDT)
- To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- cc: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>, Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sorry, I don't think I was clear enough.
I think we should maintain the requirements (checkpoints) for things like
illustration and use of simple clear language. I meant that what should go in
techniques is some explanation of what we expect these things to do, as well
as exaples.
cheers
chaals
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, William Loughborough wrote:
At 04:31 AM 4/3/01 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>I think this stuff is all techniques material
At the moment I disagree with this. If we sing the song, we must dance the
dance.
We've got to start somewhere and the contention that our focus is almost
entirely on accessibility as a blindness issue has *some* validity. Harvey
and I are the only ones around this outfit who are actual experiencers of
the main population of PWD: the aging. There is another group that has
almost no experiential representatives so we must speak up about people who
*NEED* illustrations.
This will help in an undertaking to define/understand/clarify/collect/+
appropriate guidelines for the selection of appropriate not-just-decorative
graphical materials. Stuff like this becomes icons (which are made through
usage, not born).
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
--
Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2001 00:40:35 UTC