RE: Proposa for Abstract for WCAG 2.0 working draft

Actually, I was "languages" instead of "technologies" not trying to say we 
are making this understandable to a wider variety of human 
spoken/signed/read languages.  I will make this clearer by saying, 
"Primarily, this is the first attempt to write checkpoints that may be 
applied to a wider range of technologies and that may be understood by a 
more varied audience."

At 12:44 PM 1/20/01 , Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>Very nice.
>
>Do we want to say we are trying to make them apply to a wider range of
>technologies and understandable too?
>
>Then it might say we are trying to make them apply to a wider range of
>technologies and understandable to more varied audiences and in different
>languages?
>
>Gregg
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>From:   w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]  On
>Behalf Of Wendy A Chisholm
>Sent:   Friday, January 19, 2001 2:08 PM
>To:     w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>Cc:     Judy Brewer
>Subject:        Proposa for Abstract for WCAG 2.0 working draft
>
>Before publishing a new working draft I need to add an abstract.  What do
>people think of this:
>Abstract
>This Working Drafts is the first step towards incorporating feedback
>received on WCAG 1.0 since its publication in May 1999. Primarily, this is
>the first attempt to write checkpoints that may be applied to a wider range
>of languages and that may be understood by a more varied audience.   Since
>this Working Draft builds on WCAG 1.0 it has the same aim: explain how to
>make Web content accessible to people with disabilities.
>--
>wendy a chisholm
>world wide web consortium
>web accessibility initiative
>madison, wi usa
>tel: +1 608 663 6346
>/--

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--

Received on Saturday, 20 January 2001 18:27:12 UTC