W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 1998

RE: Prorities, Impacts, Etc

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <po@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:58:25 -0600
To: "'GL - WAI Guidelines WG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D088364DDC78D211B9CA00104B978B86327D@nt.trace.wisc.edu>

Whew Eric.
Quite a list

Let me start by simplifying some of the list

1)  We are currently planning on REMOVING the priorities from the Guidelines
and leaving them only on the Techniques in the guidelines document.    That
would remove the problems you cite with definition of priorities of
guidelines vs techniques.  (we are removing them for reasons essentially the
same as what you cite.  They just aren't functional at the guidelines
level.)

2)  The definitions are already defined in terms of "impact".  Once you
remove the priorities from the guidelines (as per above) you end up with
Priority 1 - techniques which *prevent* one or more groups from using
information on you site. (total barriers to access to info)
Priority 2 - techniques with remove "*major usability* problems for one or
more groups.  (Very hard to access some info if you don't do this)
Priority 3 - techniques which solve other less severe usability problems
(makes it easier to use the pages and access the info)

3)  The guidelines *document* would be normative including the guidelines
and the techniques in the guidelines document.    The techniques *document*
is what would be non-normative.   There is so much confusion around this
that I think we should rename the techniques document to something else.
We'll look into this.

4)  The techniques in the guidelines document have all been written to be
stable over time. The unstable part we push over to the techniques document.
If you see one that isn't let us know so we can work on it.

5)  You suggested that for each guideline, the affected disability groups
should be listed.    The rationale is designed to some of that.    Which
ones do you think do not have a rationale.   We have avoided making the
document any more wordy than necessary to understand the guidelines and
strategies.  Longer discussions of disability issues etc. are planned by the
education outreach program.

6)  (Your #2)  What is the purpose of specifying the "most favorable"
conditions?  Does that change what an author should do?  If not, it seems
like it would be best contained in a document aimed at users.   Most users
can't afford the "most favorable" technologies, so authors should plan not
for the optimal  but for what is expected or usual.

7) (your #3)  generate a group impact rating for each guideline.  I am not
sure of the purpose of this unless an author would want to make his site
accessible for on group but not care about another.    The current impact
ratings (priorities) indicate whenever a group will be unable (P1) or have
great difficulty (P2) accessing information if a technique is not used.
Further information may be informative and could be supplied in an EO
document - but I'm not sure how it would change the rating for a technique
or whether an author should follow it.

8) (your #4 differential ratings).  We tried to not have any guidelines in
the accessibility guidelines unless they were true access issues.  That is,
people without disabilities would have access but people with disabilities
would not.  Thus all the guideline ratings should already be differential.
Which ones are you looking at that you think are not?  Language is the only
one I can think of that might fall in this category.  Others?

9)  (your #5  summary results)   I do not understand what you are getting at
here.  Each technique has an impact rating (priority).    The guidelines
will not have any - since they don't seem to have any priority with face
validity.



Summary and notes re your conclusion.

The techniques part of the guidelines document is Normative  (the whole
guidelines doc is).  Thus there is an impact statement in the normative
part - the priorities attached to each technique.

I think the removal of priorities from the guidelines and the fact that the
techniques (that are in the guidelines doc) are normative and rated
addresses most of you concerns / comments.   The other comments are good
ideas but I think they are more appropriate for additional education and
teaching documents rather than the normative guidelines doc.

RE one sentence guidelines.   Most are. Where they are not, it is for good
reason and only after much thought and writing.  It is important to not have
too long and convoluted a sentence.  If you have suggestions though we are
always interested in seeing them.

We have also leveled out the techniques so they are not nested as before.

We are also looking at your other comments re wording etc.  More as we
process them.

Your thoughts on the above or the latest draft?

Gregg


-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Human Factors
Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis.
Director - Trace R & D Center
Gv@trace.wisc.edu, http://trace.wisc.edu/
FAX 608/262-8848
For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@trace.wisc.edu
Received on Tuesday, 15 December 1998 11:54:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:58 GMT