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

Re: Consideration of work load

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:05:17 -0500
Message-Id: <199904221508.KAA14376@staff1.cso.uiuc.edu>
To: Eric Hansen <eghansen@yahoo.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
I think it is difficult to estimate the costs, there are so many factors
that influence the time and cost.  

For the guidelines to be implemented broadly they must be integrated into
authoring tools, so that most authors will not even know they are creating
accessible materials.  In this case the user will not even perceive a cost.
 So I don't think looking at todays tools and workloads is a very important
issue in  determining the checkpoints in the document.  

Nobody would of started putting in concrete curbcuts and ramps if they
would have looked at the costs or retrofitting street, but the benefits to
all people (not just people with disabilities) is well documented.  

The guidelines foremost concern should be defining the principles to make
web documents more accessible.

Jon


At 05:38 AM 4/22/99 -0700, Eric Hansen wrote:
>What level of responsibility does the Working Group have to ensure that
>the overall work load caused by the checkpoints is resonable and
>practical for Web content developers to bear?
>
>I think that the Working Group is agreed that the feasibility of
>implementing a checkpoint must not influence the priorty assigned to
>the checkpoint.
>
>Nevertheless, I have argued that issues of cost and feasibility must
>influence whether the checkpoint is included in the guidelines at all. 
>
>Elaborating upon that thought, I would like to suggest that the Working
>Group needs to look not only at the work load associated with each
>individual checkpoint, but also whether the cumulative load imposed by
>the entire set of checkpoints is reasonable.
>
>To do otherwise, one could still have a guideline document for which
>the each checkpoint had an accurate priority rating but for which the
>triple-A (or other level) of conformance was impractical for all but a
>few Web content developers to implement.
>
>I believe that it is entirely within the purview (and opportunity) of
>the Working Group ensure that, in its opinion, the work load imposed by
>the triple-A conformance level is reasonable practical for the majority
>of Web content developers. 
>
>To reiterate the question, is it within the scope of work of the
>Working Group to evaluate the guidelines from the standpoint of overall
>workload upon the Web content developer? If so, what process is or
>should be in place to perform this task?
>
>
>===
>Eric G. Hansen
>Development Scientist, Educational Testing Service
>ETS 12-R
>Rosedale Road
>Princeton, NJ 08541
>(W) 609-734-5615, (Fax) 609-734-1090
>Internet: ehansen@ets.org 
>_________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> 
Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street
Champaign, IL 61820

Voice: 217-244-5870
Fax: 217-333-0248
E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
WWW:	http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
	http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess
Received on Thursday, 22 April 1999 11:08:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:59 GMT