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

Guidlines review Re: http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/

From: Jonathan Chetwynd <jay@peepo.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 07:39:42 +0100
Message-ID: <378447AE.CE0BD798@peepo.com>
To: w3c <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
These are notes

in brief:

A    split the guidelines into those meeting people's needs and those
concerned with UI.
B    provide working examples
C    mention cultural issues
D    encourage automated navigation (storytelling)
E    encourage use of appropriate images
F    dilectics
G    priamble

----

A    split the guidelines into those meeting people's needs and those
concerned with UI.

The guidelines are split between meeting the different needs of users
and the different abilities of their computer interfaces (UIs)

 people            1,2,4,7,12,13,14
 machines        2,3,5,6,8,9,10,11


That is my first impression, and at this stage of our understanding that
is a mess.
It is crucial that people can find the information they require.
Just as the techniques have been separated, peoples needs and machine
abilities must be separated.
This will lead to some duplication,  people must come first.

------

B    provide working examples

It is important that the guidelines are a good example of what they
intend

Guideline 3 has two useful examples ie
(using a table for layout or a header to change the font size)
(e.g., constructing what looks like a table of data with an HTML PRE
element)
However they are textual rather than graphical..

> < ^ are excellent tools for navigation once learnt.
However, it is not clear how one navigates without a scroll bar, though
javascript could provide screensize and v could provide next page, for
those with javascript.

Naturally this means there should be bad examples.
Why not have an example of an irritating and meaningless flickering
animation, with a disable button.

There is frequent mention of the need to cater for cognitive disablity,
but no link to the example guideline site.
-----

C    mention cultural issues

Where is the mention of cultural artifact. Most of our students live in
flats, but house/home is still gingerbread style.
Chopsticks/KFS... white weddings/funerals... Some of these concerns are
cross-media.

-----

D    encourage automated navigation (storytelling)

gl 7.
>People with physical disabilities might not be able to move quickly or
accurately enough to interact with moving objects.

In fact people with physical+cognitive disabilities need more specific
motivation. Moving objects are better able to provide a context. Scroll
bars are a complete barrier to many.

7.1,7.2 excellent

Perhaps mention should be made of the need to provide programmatic
movement through a site with a speed control. (also covers 7.3, 7.4,
7.5)

gl 10. automated navigation is essential for some users see 7


-----

E    encourage use of appropriate images

gl 1
>Provide equivalent alternatives to auditory and visual content.

The porisma or corollary is that we MUST provide visual content that is
equivalent, and this is very much more time consuming and difficult.

>Providing non-text equivalents (e.g., pictures, videos, and
pre-recorded audio) of text is also beneficial to some users, especially
nonreaders or people who have difficulty reading.

This rather brief in comparison and does not discuss the inherent
difficulties, it is certainly not rated a 'must'.


14.2 >Supplement text with graphic or auditory presentations where they
will facilitate comprehension of the page.

why is this not priority 1?

This is hardly encouraging, a picture tells a thousand words, in many
cases pictures are a huge benefit. Non-readers, children...

For the sighted vision is a large part of their native (pre-educational)
understanding. People with cognitive disability make extensive use of
this ability, in order to navigate the real world. Making use of this
ability offers an opportunity to enhance education.
This area is extremely complex and needs enormous expansion.

-----

F dilectics

The Guidelines seem to occasionally and regularly miss out on dilectical
arguments, that is if a group needs, or has a problem with one feature,
it is almost certain that another group will need that feature disabled
or actioned.
(I use porisma in a similar sense to corollary, but where the solution
is either irrational, or difficult to attain.)

----

G    priamble

The following notes concern the priamble, they are not guideline notes
but 'chapter' notes.


1.0

>They may have difficulty reading or comprehending text.

Excellent, but having noted a disability, it is important to meet its
needs.

2.1...

>Provide text (including text equivalents). Text can be rendered in ways
that are available to almost all browsing devices and accessible to
almost all users.

This plainly does not help those with cognitive difficulties
why is the opposite not mentioned ie providing pictures and sounds?


4.

>Each checkpoint has a priority level assigned by the Working Group
based on the checkpoint's impact on accessibility.

Says who, no but seriously this needs to be expanded. ie are we just
identifying what is possible?
Received on Thursday, 8 July 1999 02:50:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:00 GMT