dear boris, > I feel that it would help me, as an implementor, to understand the reasons > for the WCAG 2.0 decisions, not just read the final product... as i just wrote in the email you quoted, I have provided in previous emails a number of examples of some of the different ways users access and AT provide access to content, which is why i consider that the provision of alt in this case is reasonable and why i support eh WCAG 2.0 recommendations. I was not directly involved in the writing or development of WCAG 2, although i did provide feedback during public comment, so I cannot provide an insight into the minds of the authors., as i said to mujeic corresponding with the WCAG working group will be the route to get the insight you desire. see ya! 2008/5/12 Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>: > Steven Faulkner wrote: > > > i am not going to bother responding to the the rest of your inflamatory > guff. > > > > I would actually rather like to see a response to this: > > > > > > > > So wait. Do you actually understand the logic behind WCAG 2.0 on this > or > > > other points? If so, then refusing the explain the logic seems like a > > > needless lack of collegiality. If not, does that mean you have just > taken > > > WCAG 2.0 on faith and applied it without understanding the underlying > logic? > > > If that is the case, then I do not understand how your proposal can be > > > meaningfully discussed. > > > > > > > I feel that it would help me, as an implementor, to understand the reasons > for the WCAG 2.0 decisions, not just read the final product... > > -Boris > > -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org Web Accessibility Toolbar - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.htmlReceived on Monday, 12 May 2008 19:42:25 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 19:58:29 UTC