- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 17:06:59 -0500
- To: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@ACM.org>
- CC: User Agent Guidelines Emailing List <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Harvey Bingham wrote: > > Checkpoint 2.1 Ensure that the user has access to all content, including > alternative equivalent representations for content. > > The meaning of "equivalent" from Random House Dictionary: > 1. equal in value, measure, force, significance, etc. > 2. corresponding in position, function., etc. > > All we assert is that comparable information is available, differently > represented. I think that "equivalent" asserts equality or correspondence, > both of which seem beyond what we expect. I disagree. In the glossary under "Alternative Equivalents for Content", we say: <BLOCKQUOTE> In the context of this document, the equivalent must fulfill essentially the same function for the person with a disability (at least insofar as is feasible, given the nature of the disability and the state of technology), as the "primary" content does for the person without any disability. </BLOCKQUOTE> I think this explains what we are trying to accomplish. - Ian -- Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel/Fax: +1 212 684-1814 Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Saturday, 15 January 2000 17:07:06 UTC