Re: checkpoint 3.4 again.

Hi Joel and all,

Do you know "Atomica"? Go to:
http://www.atomica.com/solutions_products_web.html
and type "supplement". I think that is a good example for 3.4

You have said:
"I can find animated GIFs and "home movies" all over the Internet to plug
into my content. But if I spend six hours writing up a set of lecture notes
for my theoretical phsyics class and then have to write or find an Applet or
similar "learning object" that will illustrate the point, just to put it on
my site and comply with my school's accessibility requirements - I'd not put
them on the website."

I don't know if you really work or you have worked as professor, but it
doesn't seem since any professor he/she dedicates time to look for all the
materials that are good to make understand, more easily, what wants to
teach. The time that dedicates to look for "supplements" for its classes, is
time that will be saved in giving explanations an and another time.

But I believe that your reservations regarding the point 3.4 are centered in
their redaction and in how it will be possible to mark "success criteria"
for their aplication. And in this sense I agree with you and I believe that
we all are working to get the best possible redaction and the most
appropriate criteria.

Then, let us revise the redaction:
"Supplement text with non-text content."

The " supplement " definition according to The American Heritage® Dictionary
of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © is:
Something added to complete a thing, make up for a deficiency, or extend or
strengthen the whole.

So, what says the guideline is not that images or any other element are
added to a text unless it is necessary to complete it, to replace a
deficiency, or to strengthen it. Therefore the rule is not applied to *any*
text.
It is this way resolved the concern that you expressed:
"What really concerns me about 3.4 though, is how - written now - it can
apply to *any* content -even content that isn't meant for a general audience
but a very specific audience."

I must admit that neither I like a lot the writing of the rule, but I
believe that if we get a good definition and some good approaches, it will
be clear for all. I hope </grin>

Kind regards,
Emmanuelle

Received on Thursday, 2 August 2001 17:01:58 UTC