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

Re: Suggested issues that may be addressed in next version of guidelines

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:26:23 -0400 (EDT)
To: Chris Maden <crism@oreilly.com>
cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9908061018150.16228-100000@tux.w3.org>
No, I'm suggesting more than just waiting for the research results to come
in. I think that there are some positive things we can do now, such as
raising the priority of illustrating pages, which clearly take us closer to
where we want to be.

I hope that further research can provide us with techniques which take us
even closer.

I realise that in requirements like "write as clearly as possible",
"illustrate with appropriate non-text equivalents", and the like,
it is much easier to understand the intent than to check whether it has been
carried out. Actually I think the intent of the phrases can be understood by
people with very severe cognitive difficulties, but testing whether something
meets the requirements means being able to show how something can be
improved, and evaluate the significance of the improvement - clearly a
complex task indeed.

I think it is clear that we want to improve accessibility for the cognitively
disabled. I think that means helping them to engage with content on the web,
and we can do that by rendering content in a way which can be understood by
as wide a group as possible. I note that understanding is not a binary
condition, but accesibility in general is not a binary condition.

Charles McCN


On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Chris Maden wrote:

  [jonathan chetwynd]
  > So I am not sure who you imagine is doing or funding this research.
  > You will understand why I consider this a poor excuse for inaction.
  
  Jonathan, I have to say that I find most of what you post to this list
  inaccessible.  Perhaps it is a cognitive disability of my own; I can
  see and read the words that you write, but I can't quite find the
  meaning.
  
  We want to go somewhere (accessibility for the cognitively
  challenged), but we're not sure exactly where (what form that
  accessibility should take) or how to get there (what steps to take).
  Should we start driving, or look at a map?  Jason and Charles are
  suggesting that we send out an expedition and find the way (or WAI)
  first, and *then* start moving that way.  You're suggesting that we
  simply set out blindly, perhaps praying that we end up where we wanted
  to be.  I just don't get it.
  
  -Chris
  -- 
  <!NOTATION SGML.Geek PUBLIC "-//Anonymous//NOTATION SGML Geek//EN">
  <!ENTITY crism PUBLIC "-//O'Reilly//NONSGML Christopher R. Maden//EN"
  "<URL>http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/crism/ <TEL>+1.617.499.7487
  <USMAIL>90 Sherman Street, Cambridge, MA 02140 USA" NDATA SGML.Geek>
  

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
Received on Friday, 6 August 1999 10:26:28 GMT

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