- From: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:26:27 -0400
- To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- CC: WAI User Agent Working Group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
agreed. Thanks! Ian Jacobs wrote: > > David Poehlman wrote: > > > > is it possible for documentation to conform to wcag and still be > > inaccessible? > > I think it's possible for a document > to conform to WCAG and not be accessible. Even if WCAG > were perfect (which it's not), it would still be possible. > But if WCAG is good, it will be unlikely. > > As to your proposal below, I think we don't need to add the > word "accessible". We could say "Ensure that you have > accessible electronic documentation." But to the question > "How do you know it's accessible?" the best we can answer > today with any supporting material is "If it conforms to WCAG." > So we can jump straight to "Ensure you have documentation > that conforms to WCAG." > > - Ian > > > or to put it another way, would it be redundant to add > > the word accessible to the following taken from the minutes? > > > > > > Does accessible doc checkpoint apply to non Web-based docs? > > > > > > Proposed: Add "electronic". > > > > > > CMN: But must add that documentation must be available in electronic form. > > > "Ensure that there is a > > > version of the product documentation that conforms to WCAG 1.0" > > That's an interesting question. I > > -- > Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs > Tel/Fax: +1 212 684-1814 -- Hands-On Technolog(eye)s Touching The Internet: mailto:poehlman@clark.net Voice: 301.949.7599 ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/poehlman http://poehlman.clark.net Dynamic Solutions Inc. Best of service for your small business network needs! http://www.dnsolutions.com ---sig off---
Received on Thursday, 26 August 1999 21:27:17 UTC