- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 09:21:40 -0400
- To: joeclark@qube.seeto.com (Joe Clark), w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Joe, I don't think you'll find your "break the standard" case within any topic of human learning --- and that's a pretty broad category. About the only type of text I can think of that isn't routinely illustrated (if not online, in real life), is the novel, and sometimes short stories .... But, with the possibility of a publisher illustrating a novel in the online version since it won't increase printing costs, but will increase readership (downloads, payments, etc.) illustrated novels may be just around the corner. How will the guidelines address accessibility issues through this progression if the guidelines keep pretending this isn't happening? Anne At 10:42 PM 8/2/01 -0400, Joe Clark wrote: >Physics sites are actually not a good test case, where we define "test >case" as something likely to break the proposed standard. I would look up >philosophy, linguistics, and history papers. Anne Pemberton apembert@erols.com http://www.erols.com/stevepem http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Friday, 3 August 2001 09:26:20 UTC