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

RE: A proposal for changing the guidelines

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:29:43 -0600
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001001bf8d00$f5664560$bcb6d818@vander>
Some short notes and an important call....

Short Notes (opinions not rulings)

1) When discussing universal design,  we should be sure to decide if we are
talking about universal design applied to the website - or applied to the
page.   I think dynamically generated presentations is clearly universal
design of the site.     I think I prefer pages that transform of themselves
rather than server side assisted transformations, but I'm not sure which
will actually give more people more usable pages.     My guess is that
transforming pages will more often provide users with all the information
(e.g. less inadvertent editing out of info)  but that server side would
generate more usable pages for each domain


2) I don't think our guidelines should take a stand on how the pages are
generated.... But rather on what makes a page accessible...   If we can
avoid how and stick to what - I think that is better.


3) I think server side solutions will wreak havoc with accessibility
validators


4) We should look again at the interaction of our priority guidelines and
regulations.   In the past our priorities have been determined basically by
what makes a page accessible.... Not by its ease of implementation.     If
regulations are going to say Priority 1 and 2  -  then we need to think this
through carefully.  I hate to say this but I think we do.

5) I think we will have some very interesting discussions at CSUN.  I am
looking forward to everyone's views.


-- IMPORTANT CALL --

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY -  If you think that we need to do something different
with the guidelines
You must come to CSUN with suggestions (or post them to this list). Specific
suggestions for change.

We are beginning to just run in circles with opinions and general concepts.
I think that this stage is essential, but we also need to move on to the
next one as well.  At least we need to see what the options might look like
if they were implemented.      There are always problems with any approach.
The question is, would an alternate approach be a better than what we have.
To determine that we need to start looking at specifics as well as the
general concepts.


Specific ideas or suggestions for the guidelines or techniques doc anyone?


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
Received on Monday, 13 March 2000 10:33:03 GMT

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