- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 09:23:34 -0800
- To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
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 ...is 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".
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Monday, 8 January 2001 12:22:55 UTC