- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 12:20:24 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 02/06/2013 10:15, David Woolley wrote: > I don't think accessibility can be reduced to machine checkable rules > either. And only a small part of WCAG 2.0 is actually machine-checkable, as it's about success criteria focussed on outcomes, rather than how those outcomes have been achieved (and which is why there are multiple techniques for each SC, and even then they're not exhaustive and there are likely many more variations - achieved in different technical ways - that still allow the SC to pass). P -- Patrick H. Lauke ______________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ ______________________________________________________________ twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke ______________________________________________________________
Received on Sunday, 2 June 2013 11:20:54 UTC