I should say something here: I do plan to read, and as appropriate comment upon, your ATC as soon as I am able to give it my only slightly fragmented attention (I get no other kind, these days). As such, any comments of mine that are directly addressed therein, such as the below, feel free to leave answered by your document as it stands--I will see them. Not that I have a problem with the below, I'm just saying... On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Janina Sajka wrote: > Please allow me to highlight the depth of the "automatic liability," as > you describe it. > > Two paragraphs from my document should suffice to highlight this. > > 1.) The Introduction to WCAG 1.0 is quoted as follows: > > "The guidelines address two general themes: ensuring graceful > transformation, and making content understandable and navigable." > > 2.) At the beginning of my ANALYSIS section in message 2 of 3 there > is this: > > It is worthwhile to note that by definition, <PRE> exists in tension > with the basic themes underlying web accessibility as expressed in the > WCAG. By definition <PRE> does not "gracefully transform" to any other > presentation. It's very purpose is to lock in a particular presentation. > Nor can it assist accessibility by making larger blocks of text > "understandable and navigable." It allows no navigational elements > within its bounds. Furthermore, people whose comprehension is challenged > by larger blocks of undifferentiated text can be expected to have > greater difficulty accessing content bounded by <PRE>. > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup >
