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

Re: proposed re-wording of goals statement

From: Bruce Roberts/CAM/Lotus <Bruce_Roberts/CAM/Lotus@lotus.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 18:26:59 GMT
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF4CDBA448.2D78143C-ON85256794.0064E7C6@lotus.com>

I still think removing the word "will" makes the goals cleaner.  Here's my
suggestion which also captures Jutta's change for the word  "create":

The authoring tool is accessible.
The authoring tool produces accessible content.
The authoring tool encourages the creation of accessible content.

-- Bruce






Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>@w3.org on 06/17/99 10:11:39 AM

Sent by:  w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org


To:   Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
cc:   w3c-wai-au@w3.org, Unagi San <unagi69@concentric.net>

Subject:  Re: proposed re-wording of goals statement


It seems to me that there is consensus on goal 2 being stated as "the tool
will create accessible content"

Gregory has effectively proposed an extra goal - that the tool be user
configurable, which I would express as the user having ultimate control.
However I don't think that is necessarily a goal, since i think there are
circumstances in which the user's control is properly constrained without
having an impact on the reaching of our goals. We have checkpoints which
specify where user control should or must not be constrained, and I prefer
that way of dealing with it.

So it seems to me that we have 3 goals:
  * The authoring tool is accessible
  * The tool will create accessible content
  * The tool will encourage the creation of accessible content

(I have changed the wording of the second goal to match what seems to have
been accepteable to everyone).

Are these acceptable as the goals?

Some pseudo-philosophy for people who want to read it...
I think the overall goal is that people will be able to use tools to
produce
good content. We give checkpoints a priority so that developers know what
they really need to work on, and what they can aim for next time (making
the
assumption that most developers will not actually do the complete job the
"first" time). We explain how we are arriving at the priorities so that our
process is more transparent, and to give enough information that the
priority
scheme can be applied to an unaddressed question.

On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, Jutta Treviranus wrote:

  With the present statement of the goals, did we lose the goal statement
  regarding the tool generating accessible content somewhere and what was
the
  justification? Goal 3 addresses the prompting, education, verification,
  alerting etc that the tool must do, which is all that a tool developer
has
  control over given that we want it to be on a user configurable schedule.
  The present goals don't address what the tool does without the author's
  explicit intervention. I would propose that goal 2 be that the tool
  generate accessible content.

  Jutta

   At 2:24 PM -0400 6/16/99, gregory j. rosmaita wrote:
  >The current (10 june) draft succinctly lists the goals of the AUGL as:
  >
  >-- begin quote
  >  * The authoring tool is accessible
  >  * Authors will create accessible content
  >  * The tool will encourage the creation of accessible content
  >-- end quote
  >
  >There have been strong objections voiced, particularly by Bruce Roberts,
  >to the wording of the second goal, and, so, as an attempt to address
this
  >concern, I propose the following re-wording:
  >
  >--- begin GJR's first formulation of goals ---
  >There are three goals:
  >
  >  1. The authoring tool is accessible
  >
  >  2. The authoring tool will create accessible content by default,
  >     according to a user-configurable schedule
  >
  >  3. The tool will encourage the creation of accessible content
  >--- end GJR's first formulation of goals ---
  >
  >- OR -
  >
  >--- begin GJR's second (more verbose) formulation of goals ---
  >There are four goals:
  >
  >  1. The authoring tool is accessible
  >
  >  2. The authoring tool will create accessible content by default
  >
  >  3. Mechanisms for creating accessible content are controlled by a
  >     user-configurable
  >
  >  4. The tool will encourage the creation of accessible content
  >--- end GJR's second (more verbose) formulation of goals ---
  >
  >Personally, I like the brevity of my first iteration, but I think the
  >second (more verbose) iteration is clearer, inasmuch as it touches on
all
  >of the points we are trying to express:
  >
  >1. the tool itself must be accessible
  >2. the tool must create accessible content by default
  >3. the tool should provide as much user-configurability as possible, and
  >4. the tool should teach authors how to construct well-structured,
  >   accessible pages, even if it does so in a subliminal manner
  >
  >One last note: Regardless of whether or not either my re-wordings are
  >accepted, I would like to "see" the list type used to enumerate these
  >goals changed from the current unordered list to an ordered list.
  >
  >gregory.
  >  ------------------------------------------------------------------
  >  DELIBERATION, n.  The act of examining one's bread to determine
  >  which side it is buttered on.
  >                            Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
  >  ------------------------------------------------------------------
  >                Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
  >  Camera Obscura:           http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html
  >  VICUG NYC:          http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/index.html
  >  Read 'Em & Speak:   http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/books/index.html
  >  ------------------------------------------------------------------


--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
Received on Friday, 18 June 1999 14:20:11 UTC

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