Re: documentation question

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