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

Re: is this the best approach?

From: Robert Neff <robneff@home.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 23:02:20 -0500
Message-ID: <002001bf8bd7$c3b4d1a0$59b10f18@alex1.va.home.com>
To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "'Wendy A Chisholm'" <wendy@w3.org>, "GL - WAI Guidelines WG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
as usual, my wish list is to see examples and glossary and instant
satisfaction - everywhere.  make it easy to use and back up the text with
examples.  you can possibly link examples to test files.

as a process oriented type personality, i like to see the flow.  this can be
done either in one document or two, i prefer one with links or bookmarks.


----- Original Message -----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
To: 'Wendy A Chisholm' <wendy@w3.org>; GL - WAI Guidelines WG (E-mail)
<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 6:06 PM
Subject: RE: is this the best approach?


> I think this is a very good and VERY important topic.
>
> I concur wholeheartedly that we need to get guidance into the main
documents
> for a technology - and not rely (just) on special docs..
> G
>
>
>
> gregg
>
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Professor - Human Factors
> Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis.
> Director - Trace R & D Center
> Gv@trace.wisc.edu, http://trace.wisc.edu/
> FAX 608/262-8848
> For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@trace.wisc.edu
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]  On
> Behalf Of Wendy A Chisholm
> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 2:28 PM
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: is this the best approach?
> Importance: High
>
> I'm working on my action item from last week: what should we incorporate
> from the SMIL access note into a SMIL module for the techniques document.
>
> The SMIL access note is very well written.  I compared it to the SMIL 1.0
> spec.  The spec describes accessibility all over the place.  I like that
> the SMIL note brings it into one place and creates a context for
> accessibility.
>
> But, what are authors really going to use?  I think they will use the
> tutorials that are pointed to from the SMIL page.  The two that I looked
at
> do not mention accessibility.  They don't even use the word "caption" and
> leave out the system-caption attribute where they mention the other system
> attributes.
>
> yikes.
>
> The authoring tools working group is working with companies to incorporate
> accessibility into existing tools.  The user agent working group is
working
> with companies to incorporate accessibility into existing user agents.
>
> perhaps our job is to work with documentation developers to incorporate
> accessibility into existing documentation?
>
> look at the effort it takes, not only for us but for authors, to create
our
> own documentation:
> 1. we have to learn about, write, test and maintain the techniques in our
> own documents.
> 2. we have to raise awareness that the documents exist.
> 3. authors have to learn from one source what to do, then *unlearn* many
of
> those things when they come to our stuff.
> 4. our stuff is a separate thing.  it requires an author to read more than
> one document.  is that likely to happen?
>
> The Guidelines need to exist because AU and UA point to them.  They
> establish a good baseline that techniques, from a variety of sources, can
> point to. It is a great work (that still needs some polishing).  But I'm
> wondering if instead of putting our effort into creating all these new
> techniques modules, perhaps we would get more bang for the buck if we
> worked with existing documents to incorporate accessibility.
>
> Then our techniques document would be lists of pointers to examples,
> tutorials, and other documents whose authors we have worked with to
include
> accessibility.
>
> thoughts?
> --wendy
> --
> wendy a chisholm
> world wide web consortium
> web accessibility initiative
> madison, wi usa
> tel: +1 608 663 6346
> /--
>
Received on Saturday, 11 March 2000 23:03:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:01 GMT