W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: Section 2.5 - was Re: Priority Definitions for Sections 2 and 3

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 16:53:22 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990421165322.03ae4100@mail.idyllmtn.com>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
At 07:38 p.m. 04/21/99 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>We already address that question in general. 

>2.7.1 addresses the requirement that a clueless author can learn how to make
>an accessible page.

No, that says they _can learn_.  That isn't the same as solving the
clueless author problem.

I want a WYSIWYG program that produces accessible output with no
learning curve.  No explanations of accessibility.  I want my mom
to be able to generate an accessible web page without even knowing
that blind users exist.  That's what the tool should be doing, and
if we can solve that problem, we've solved the biggest one, IMNSHO.

Documenting accessibility practices doesn't solve that problem.  It's
not a checkpoint under one guideline, it's the goal of the whole
document -- or it should be, at least.

>2.7.2 addresses the requirement that it is a simple thing
>for them to do.

Uh, no, that doesn't do that either.

Remember, the clueless user should be allowed to REMAIN clueless
and STILL produce a usable, accessible web page.  The authoring tool
does NOT have to teach them accessibility as long as the authoring
tool creates accessible web pages anyway!

--
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@hwg.org>
President, Governing Board Member
HTML Writers Guild <URL:http://www.hwg.org>
Director, Accessible Web Authoring Resources and Education Center
  <URL:http://aware.hwg.org/>
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 1999 19:57:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:42 UTC