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

Re: proposed re-wording of goals statement (fwd)

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 14:36:21 -0400 (EDT)
To: WAI AU Guidelines <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9906231435570.30073-100000@tux.w3.org>
Forwarded for Gregory - CMN

so, i am sending this to you to in order that you might pass it on to the
list...

as for the goals statement, i'm not quite sure from whence jutta's objection,
quote 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? ...   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. unquote.

no, we did not lose the goal mandating that the tool generate accessible
content--as a matter of fact, i would contend that my proposed rewording of the
goals strengthens that statement... to review: my original proposal contained
the following 2 variations of the goals statement:

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 
- OR -

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 schedule.
        4. The tool will encourage the creation of accessible content

as i stated in my original message, I personally like the brevity of the first
iteration, but thought the second iteration is clearer, inasmuch as it touches
on all of the points we are trying to express:

1. the authoring tool itself must be accessible
2. the authoring tool must create accessible content by default
3. the authoring tool should provide as much user-configurability as possible,
and
4. the authoring tool should teach authors how to construct well-structured,
   accessible pages, even if it does so in a subliminal manner

i have no problem with any editorial changes that removes any passivity from
the goals stated above, but i don't understand how one can read either of the
above and not know that one goal of the AUGL is to force authoring tools to
create accessible content by default...  and, i tend to agree with charles'
initial reaction to my proposal, which is that my  restatement of the goals
(the summary immediately preceding this paragraph) is actually the clearest
statement of our aims that we have yet formulated...

gregory.

--------------------------------------------------------
He that lives on Hope, dies farting
     -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1763
--------------------------------------------------------
Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
   President, WebMaster, & Minister of Propaganda, 
        VICUG NYC <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/>
--------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 1999 14:36:23 UTC

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