W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: Cognitive issues (was Re: woodcutter)

From: Robert Neff <robneff@home.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 23:00:37 -0400
Message-ID: <002d01bf9d18$c9c57480$59b10f18@alex1.va.home.com>
To: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>, "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
if they go in, i suggest P3

----- Original Message -----
From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2000 11:16 PM
Subject: Cognitive issues (was Re: woodcutter)

> One point which is easily overlooked in these discussions, and which bears
> reiterating, is the centrality of language in the expression and
> communication of concepts. Whether it be a gestural, written or spoken
> language; and whether, in the case of a written language, the signs be
> pictographic or phonetic, ultimately, understanding of the language
> requires mastery of certain conventions by which meaning is represented, a
> grammar, and so forth. A linguist would be able to develop the details. If
> a person is unable to learn a language at all, then there is much that
> will be inherently inaccessible. This might perhaps be considered as a
> limiting case. Beyond this, there are those who can use language, but who
> encounter serious difficulties in so doing. This is where checkpoints 14.1
> and 14.2 are valuable (leaving aside other checkpoints related to
> navigation, etc., which are also notable in this context).
> Non-textual representations of content can complement language and serve
> to clarify and communicate concepts. To this extent they serve a
> facilitating role. The fundamental question which needs to be addressed,
> therefore, is what guidance can be given to the designers of electronic
> documents to encourage appropriate use of non-textual forms of expression,
> in ways that will benefit individuals with cognitive disabilities? So far
> in these discussions, little has been offered by way of concrete advice in
> this direction. What should be added to the techniques document under the
> rubric of checkpoint 14.2?
> It is time to move beyond the generalisations and to start considering, in
> so far as this is possible, what should be included in broadly applicable
> guidelines to give substance to the requirement expressed in checkpoint
> 14.2.
> Please note: these comments are offered in my personal capacity and not in
> pursuance of my role as working group co-chair.
Received on Monday, 3 April 2000 00:02:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:32 UTC