RE: NEW DRAFT - 31 July 2001

Nothing on this page works with my browser

Can you tell me  what the non-text is that is on the page?

Gregg

(sorry for the irony)

-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Human Factors
Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis.
Director - Trace R & D Center
Gv@trace.wisc.edu <mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <http://trace.wisc.edu/>
FAX 608/262-8848 
For a list of our listserves send “lists” to listproc@trace.wisc.edu
<mailto:listproc@trace.wisc.edu>


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 3:19 AM
To: Joel Sanda
Cc: 'Anne Pemberton'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: NEW DRAFT - 31 July 2001

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)

Received on Thursday, 2 August 2001 01:08:27 UTC