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

RE: section 3

From: Charles Oppermann <chuckop@MICROSOFT.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 09:14:29 -0800
Message-ID: <BB61526CDE70D2119D0F00805FBECA2F072E37C5@RED-MSG-55>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
<<
If we are being redundant, so be it.  This pitifully small array of
points about accessible interfaces is *IMPORTANT* even if the developers
of Web authoring tools already know about it.  If they are already
implemented then there is no problem with having them "bloat" our
document somewhat.
>>

I have no problem with the W3C attempting to come up with some generalized
set of guidelines for accessible software design.

My sole point in arguing against this is one of resources.  It you want a
feature to be in the next version of the Microsoft Office suite of
applications, then these guidelines have to be done NOW.  It was very
frustrating for me to watch the User Agent group not have a proposed
recommendation in time for Internet Explorer 5 and it looks like it'll miss
Internet Explorer 6 as well.

If this group has the manpower, whoops, she power, to duplicate an already
large, mature, and thoroughly researched existing body of work, then
something is wrong.

<<
it is still
worth our while to remind the huge proportion of tool authors who have
ignored these requests that at least in the case of authoring tools it
is important to consider the items we point out in our guidelines,
checkpoints, and techniques.
>>

Does the WG feel that their guidelines will carry more weight or for some
reason be less likely to be ignored than previous guidelines?  The existing
guidelines from Trace, IBM, Sun Microsystems and Microsoft are being
implemented, although I'm certain the pace is acceptable to no one.  Will a
WAI set of guidelines improve that pace.  Maybe.  Maybe not.

Bottom line for me:  I'd love to see a document that includes guidelines for
ensuring the accessibility of the authoring tool user interface in addition
to guidelines for the produced content.  I'm worried that it will delay the
work of this group significantly and thus the ENTIRE set of guidelines will
be delayed.

Please remember:  A single person might use PageMill or FrontPage to create
a web site for www.TheNextBigThing.com, but thousands of people might have
to use the content that is created.  Guidelines exist on how to make the
user interface of PageMill, FrontPage and other authoring tools accessible
and they are being implemented, albeit slowly.  No guidelines exist on how
to produce accessible content.

I urge this group to stay focused and committed to the big picture.

-----Original Message-----
From: love26@gorge.net [mailto:love26@gorge.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 1999 6:02 PM
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Subject: Re: section 3


For many years the indefinite pronoun (as to gender) was always
presented as "he" and in more enlightened times became "he or she" or
occasionally "(s)he".  Many of us use "she" as a sort of compensation
for the many years of the dreaded "all *MEN* are created equal".

The point of this is that although it may be true that many (or even
most) of the software guidelines about accessibility mention the
features we seek to emphasize in Section 3 of our document, it is still
worth our while to remind the huge proportion of tool authors who have
ignored these requests that at least in the case of authoring tools it
is important to consider the items we point out in our guidelines,
checkpoints, and techniques.

If we are being redundant, so be it.  This pitifully small array of
points about accessible interfaces is *IMPORTANT* even if the developers
of Web authoring tools already know about it.  If they are already
implemented then there is no problem with having them "bloat" our
document somewhat.
-- 
Love.
            ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 1999 12:14:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:52:54 GMT