RE: NEW DRAFT - 31 July 2001

Charles,

         What a delight to finish what looking at the sufficiency criteria 
for 3.4, then click on this site, and listen to your wonderful voice 
telling folks why putting the picture there helps. Loved the sound files 
and loved your drawings. Very simple! Very effective! The communicate and 
are much easier to understand than the ones I did a few months back....

                         Great Work!

                                 Anne


At 04:18 AM 8/1/01 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>Well, I have put a bit of sound and graphics online at
>http://www.w3.org/2001/08/mmcmn that might be a start at how to actually
>illustrate 3.4 in a manner that would meet 3.4.
>
>That page isn't an attempt to use those things in situ - it is a home for
>them to be seen, that includes (rudimentary) text equivalents. Note that I
>have cut the image down to one sixth size and it worked for me, which I
>thought was good for something that is 640x480 naturally.
>
>Comments welcome, but be kind - I already know that I am not a graphic
>designer <grin/> or communicator of any great talent.
>
>Cheers
>
>Charles
>
>On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Joel Sanda wrote:
>
>   Anne -
>
>   The idea of content stabilization is a valid point, but what if content
>   changes are frequent? Any content that changes will need to be designed in
>   alternative formats.
>
>   Take the WCAG 2.0 document. Is there, since the content isn't stable and
>   always changing, no way to build it so it can conform to the WCAG 2.0 until
>   it is stable? That means that, as a working document, it cannot be
>   accessible, at least according to the WCAG 2.0.
>
>   My concern is the way 3.4 is written now the group working on the WCAG 2.0
>   can't adhere to the point while the document is in a working draft. What if
>   someone on the group had to have content in a form specified by 3.4, but
>   can't get it because the content isn't stable?
>
>
>
>   Joel Sanda
>   Product Manager
>   -------------------------------------------------------www.eCollege.com
>   eCollege
>   joels@ecollege.com
>   > p. 303.873.7400 x3021
>   > f.  303.632.1721
>
>
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: Anne Pemberton [mailto:apembert@erols.com]
>   Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 3:27 PM
>   To: Wendy A Chisholm; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>   Subject: Re: NEW DRAFT - 31 July 2001
>
>
>   Wendy, Paul, and all,
>
>            I have absolutely no objections to anything in the newest
>   draft.  I will try to read it through tomorrow and give you some help on at
>   least one of the places you asked for help, and, if no one tells you first,
>   there are a few typo/grammar errors that I spotted reading through it.
>
>            I am so grateful for Paul Bohman's version .... his separating
>   these documents into usable segments helped me understand the organization
>   of the document and it was easier to use this time than previous -- just
>   cause I've seen Paul's organization ... <grin> ...
>
>            Wendy, Joel Sanda asks about illustrating the illustration
>   content. Can you tell him where to see what I did last time we were asked
>   to do that? We need to stabilize the text before we begin to build the
>   illustrations. Is your illustrator joining us?
>
>            I look forward to this draft passing the consensus so we don't
>   have to hang a label over this one "under construction" ... with the little
>   earthmover icon!....
>
>                                                    Anne
>
>
>
>
>   At 01:45 PM 7/31/01 -0400, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>   >Hello,
>   >
>   >A new draft is available.  The 26 July 2001 version did not have updates
>   >to checkpoints 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4. This draft updates
>   >those, as well as incorporates discussion on checkpoint 2.1 from the 26
>   >July 2001 telecon on the 26 July 2001 working draft.
>   >
>   >Again, I suggest people read the change log first:
>   >http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/change-history.html
>   >
>   >I have identified several issues again and highlighted major changes, such
>   >as combining checkpoints.
>   >
>   >I included my proposed checkpoint 3.4 with some minor changes.  I look
>   >forward to responses on this.  If it is too controversial, I will revert
>   >back to the previous draft or suggest people provide proposals for
>   >something that is more acceptable.  We are working to publish a public
>   >working draft on 10 August 2001.  We don't need to have consensus for a
>   >working draft, but we also don't want to publish anything that contains
>   >substantial errors or disagreement.
>   >
>   >If possible, we might just put a placeholder for checkpoint 3.4 that says,
>   >"A checkpoint on providing illustrations will go here. The working group
>   >does not have sufficient agreement to publish anything at this time."
>   >
>   >The draft itself is available at:
>   >http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20010731.html
>   >
>   >For the latest draft, always refer to:
>   >http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/
>   >
>   >This redirects to the current version.
>   >
>   >I look forward to your comments.
>   >--wendy
>   >--
>   >wendy a chisholm
>   >world wide web consortium
>   >web accessibility initiative
>   >seattle, wa usa
>   >/--
>
>   Anne Pemberton
>   apembert@erols.com
>
>   http://www.erols.com/stevepem
>   http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
>
>
>--
>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)

Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45

Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2001 13:48:14 UTC