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

Re: A proposal for changing the guidelines

From: Robert Neff <robneff@home.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 22:08:58 -0500
Message-ID: <004201bf8c99$799d4c60$59b10f18@alex1.va.home.com>
To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@crosslink.net>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
is it possible?  Yes

Is it implementable?  That is questionable?  The toolsets are not there yet
and it is not certain when this will be - one, two or three years?

You cannot deny people the information they crave both visually and
textually; however, until the toolsets support rapid application
development, implementation is going to be an issue.  Especially for people
who use web authoring tools that do not let you touch the code (NetObjects
but not certain is does now or not).

I would rather we make guidelines that are implementable and when the
authoring tools catch up and everyone is trained, then go back and increase
the prioirities.  remember, after the US Government posts the 508
requirements to the Federal Registrar  and they become enforceable on 7 Aug
2000.  They are already late - supposed to be out in February and this means
every day their approval is delayed then this is day lost to educate, train
and rework pages.

Ihn my humble opinion, everything that is do-able now without a lot of
rework should be Priority 1 and 2 and everything that is not should be
Priority 3.  As the US Federal Govt is expected to adopt the Conformance
Level AA, i think this would be an easy way top get buy-in and hook the
developers.

Did anyone notice that i did not sue the Tag for ABBR on US to spell out
United States.  To make the use of ABBR a Priority 1 is too much. Then every
page out is just about disqualified!  but who is going to check - validators
do not pick up on this.

Has anyone hear every been responsible for a hi-end web site sight that gets
over 10 million hits a month and has a lot of  content refreshed everyday?
or a high-end e-commerce site that is driven by revenue and ads?  or been a
part of a operation that has no money to but new tools.  If you havent, then
this is the target envrionment where we need buy-in.  these web sites are
the market leaders that everyone is watching and should be our target market
becasue they are voluntary.  .

By the way, i do understand the insistence of PWD to have these met
immediately because their access is hindered.  But i also believe that you
need buy-in from the development community.

rob


----- Original Message -----
From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 7:31 PM
Subject: RE: A proposal for changing the guidelines


> Gregg,
>
> Speaking for those who would prefer the pages with heavy graphics, perhaps
> even heavier than most pages are now (or at least more meat in the
> graphics!), I agree with your concerns. The graphics form must convey the
> fullness of the information, even tho it is sometimes difficult to
assemble
> sufficient graphics to convey the whole story. The goal of dynamically
> created pages should be to make the whole presentation: graphics, sound,
> multi-media, text, and mixes tailored to the user, all convey the same
> story. I suspect that before this can become realistic, authoriting tools
> will have to be able to generate the parts from the whole, and flag the
> author when a page has insuffucient graphics and/or text. Is this
possible?
>
> Anne
>
> At 04:07 PM 3/12/2000 -0600, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> >The bug-a-boo I see is ensuring that the alternative form created by the
> >server does indeed have all the information.    I wonder if we could
> >generate a set of rules that would do that.   I THINK (but I don't know)
> >that the current WCAG does that.   We just need an application note (or a
> >techniques doc section or supplement) that would make it clear exactly
how
> >to do that.   Once that was done - it would be interesting to see if it
> >would indicate that the language in the WCAG itself would need change (or
> >not) to tune it for this usage.
> >
> >Comments anyone?
> >
> >Gregg
>
> Anne L. Pemberton
> http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1
> http://www.erols.com/stevepem/Homeschooling
> apembert@crosslink.net
> Enabling Support Foundation
> http://www.enabling.org
>
Received on Sunday, 12 March 2000 22:09:49 GMT

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