At 11:33 AM 1/8/01 -0500, Wendy A Chisholm wrote [quoting Jason's proposal]:
>1.1 Text equivalents.
>1.2 Synchronization of text equivalents with auditory/visual content.
>1.3 Auditory descriptions
1.6 Device-independence of input event handlers.

These, to me at least, just *feel* like sort-of-same-thing checkpoints. 
Also I would hope that generic "equivalencies" 
(illustrations/icons/"exhibits"/+) were introduced (thank you Al, Anne and 
Jonathan) even if tempered by a "where appropriate/possible" disclaimer.

I find no significant difference between 
"furnishing/synchronizing/describing/+" stuff. The detailed 
explanations/examples/techniques go to the text/audio/illustration aspects. 
Not to mention (he says while mentioning it!) that "text equivalents" 
coming under "device independence" is one of those "might be debated" things.

What I'm getting at (laboriously?) is that rather than perpetually 
reconfiguring to meet the *forever* arguments about whether "Design content 
to facilitate browsing" should include "Logical separation of content and 
structure from presentation" or if "Ensure that content backward 
compatible" really belongs under "Guideline 1: Device-independence" we 
should take a vote on something and get going.

It will be easier to get started on our well-proposed techniques creations 
if we freeze the guidelines/checkpoints, at least to some extent. This is 
in danger of becoming a W3C "rathole".


Received on Monday, 8 January 2001 12:22:55 UTC