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

Re: Support for cognitive disabilities

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:09:22 -0500 (EST)
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <po@trace.wisc.edu>
cc: "'GL - WAI Guidelines WG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9901201159240.10643-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
  
  We are concerned that there is not a P1 checkpoint specifically for
  cognitive disability concerns but the group could not come up with any
  others that didn't seem to already be covered (at their base level - they
  will be expanded on in the techniques doc).

CMN::
I do not like the idea of making something a P1 "to show support" - I
think it should only be done because 'failure to do this means some group
will be unable to access the content'.
  

GV::
  Checkpoint B.3.1 is currently a Priority 2. Could it be raised to 
  Priority 1?
  
  "Use the simplest and most straightforward language that is possible for the
  content of your site. [Priority 2] "
  
CMN::
It could, particularly if we explained why in the rationale. Testing of
language is a notoriously hard thing to do, but the principle is
well-established. For example, many countries have made significant
attempts to render laws in plain language.

GV::  
  Checkpoint B.3.2 is currently a Priority 3, but might be a Priority 2.
  
  "Use icons or graphics (with alternative text) where they facilitate
  comprehension of the page. [Priority 3] "
  
CMN::
It should. My '7 sins and 7 virtues', as its first virtue, says 'use
images. carefully.' They can serve to increase comprehension significantly
(hence their popularity) for large groups of people. But they have
associated problems (as we have discussed) so I don't think they should
be a P1.  
  
GV::
  We also considered giving one or both a variable priority, along the lines
  of, "If the information is important to understanding the page, make it a P1
  otherwise P2."

CMN::
  I think we should have a general staement in the introduction which says
something about important information/functionality, and 'presentational
candy' - in the latter case it is acceptable to let the content/function
disappear so long as it doesn't break the document.
  
Charles
  

--Charles McCathieNevile -  mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: * +1 (617) 258 0992 *  http://purl.oclc.org/net/charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative -  http://www.w3.org/WAI
545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, USA
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 1999 12:09:27 GMT

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