- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 15:33:07 -0700
- To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
- Cc: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "GLWAI Guidelines WG \(GL - WAI Guidelines WG\)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 02:27 PM 7/30/2001 , Anne Pemberton wrote: >Kynn, > > Guideline 1 uses the term "equivalent" .... changing it to "parallels" in Guideline 3 would be confusing. But in the discussion, if parallels helps comprehension, use it .... I dunno if I want a change in the guideline text or not, but I think it is important to realize that it's very hard to get hung up on "equivalent" but less problematic to talk about "parallel." Is a transcript "equivalent" to a movie? Are a book-on-tape and a printed book "equivalent"? It's hard to say; it's problematic. If a book and an audio book are "equivalent", does that mean that an audio book read by Patrick Stewart and an audio book read by me are "equivalent"? (Most people would likely say not.) So when we are talking about "alternative versions" we actually mean parallel versions -- which accomplish the same thing, convey the same content, perform the same functions -- rather than equivalent versions. --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com> Technical Developer Liaison Reef North America Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network Tel +1 949-567-7006 ________________________________________ BUSINESS IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL. ________________________________________ http://www.reef.com
Received on Monday, 30 July 2001 18:39:18 UTC