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

guideline comments

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 07:30:02 -0800
Message-ID: <36A3537A.F68EBCAC@gorge.net>
To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
The second sentence of the Abstract lists the two aspects of the AU WG
effort and then only the first (accessible output) is elaborated.  For
completion there should be a sentence explaining the second (accessible

IMO checkpoints 2.3.1, 2.3.2, and 2.3.3 should be combined into one that
says something like "check documents when they are opened or edited
(including hand-coding...).  If the check reveals problems the author
will be notified in a manner appropriate with her configuration choices
(anything from highlighting to presentation of repair actions required
before continuing).

In case it slips through 2.5.5 and 2.5.6 are identical.

w.5.8 might well include "...with certainty, as for example with
horizontal rules, bullets, etc."

In 3.4 is "This will increase integration and help show authors that
accessibility is a normal part of authoring, rather than a separate
concern."  Somehow this message must be hammered on because it is clear
that every authoring tool maker *STILL* regards accessibility as an
"add-on" rather than an integrated imperative.  This is an exact
parallel to the notion widely held in the Disability Rights Movement
that Temporarily Able Bodied people just "don't get it".  To the extent
that this our guidelines are viewed as sort of a "white man's burden"
imposed arbitrarily on the already overworked makers of tools and
Websites, we will be ignoring our aims and opportunities.  This is
especially relevant to 3.6.

3.7.1 should again include the notion that the relevant "positive
reinforcement" feedback is only presented in accordance with the user's
choice of notification level.

I still prefer that 3.5.3 contain an even stronger imperative: It must
be difficult (impossible?) to get by a final ready-for-the-Web status
check without Priority 1 compliance.  Just saving a file is probably OK
without the "Warning: this document contains material which if placed on
the World Wide Web will leave the poster under a curse" or something. 
But the final "check" should be done just as it is in income tax
preparation software before the return is filed.

4.1 is important enough to have a Priority 1 status (4.2 and 4.3 as
well) since in many cases this is the only chance for certain users to
use this as well as being a useful teaching tool for what this is all
about in the case of non-PWD authors.  Thus 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 must say
"must" instead of "should".

Received on Monday, 18 January 1999 10:29:15 UTC

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