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

Re: A proposal for changing the guidelines

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:58:00 -0600
Message-Id: <4.1.20000315084954.009e8b80@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <unagi69@concentric.net>, Scott Luebking <phoenixl@netcom.com>
Cc: Web Content Accessiblity Guidelines Mailing List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
The main issue that Scott seems to be raising, to me at least, is choosing
between one of the following choices as the main premise for the web
content guidelines:
1. Does every resource on a website need to be accessible?
2. Does the information on a website need to be available in at least one
accessible form?

Option 1 seems to be the current thinking of WAI in general (at least in my
Option 2 is acknowledged in Web Content with the provision of the text only
page option for complex pages and in User Agent in the documentation
section that says as least one version of the documentation must be accessible.

Do you think this is the central issue being raised by Scott?


At 06:53 PM 3/14/00 -0500, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:
>aloha, scott!
>i've looked at your demos, and i've read your posts -- what i'm waiting to 
>read are:
>1) concrete problem statements
>2) concrete checkpoint proposals
>3) concrete techniques
>in the absence of the above, this conversation will go nowhere, but around 
>and around, as it has for the past few months...
>please -- anyone who has suggested that there are topics that the GL 
>working group has missed or who has a plan for a note addressing something 
>they believe WCAG does not currently (or adequately) address, please post 
>CONCRETE SUGGESTIONS to this list, so that they can be discussed on-list 
>and at CSUN
>there's been enough bickering and rhetoric posted to this list, and i admit 
>my own past complicity in prolonging the cycle...  but enough is enough -- 
>let's get back to our mission: improving the guidelines and techniques 
>documents through the discussion of concrete and specific examples, 
>checkpoints, and techniques,
>         gregory.
>At 12:29 PM 3/13/00 -0800, you wrote:
>>Hi, Gregory
>>Look at my demo for a start.  What about it do blind users like?
>>Also, look at my example of linking error messages on web pages.
>> > aloha, scott!
>> >
>> > in a reply to charles, you wrote, quote:
>> > Your statement about a "user impact matrix" is kind of interesting.Your
>> > argument can also be applied to the guidelines.  Don't the guidelines
>> > themselves make certain generalizations about particular groups.  For
>> > example, I can point out a number of areas of access problems that the
>> > guidelines don't address that cause trouble for users. These areas are not
>> > generally known because there has been very little research based on
>> > observation on what kinds of problems blind users can run into.  By
>> > ignoring the problems, the guidelines are assuming they are not issues 
>> that
>> > affect users very much.
>> > unquote
>> >
>> > if you are aware of any issues which WCAG does not address, you should 
>> post
>> > them to this list, so that they can be officially added to the issues 
>> list...
>> >
>> > accessibility is in the eye, ear, and/or fingertip (to name but a few
>> > facilities) of the beholder -- and if the guidelines working group isn't
>> > aware of entire classes of access problems, we need to be alerted, and the
>> > best way to do so would be to post a problem statement and proposed
>> > checkpoint (and techniques) to cover each issue that we've missed...
>> >
>> > that, to a great extent, is how the WAI guidelines are created...  they're
>> > not created in ivory tower isolation, but have consistently, and
>> > persistently, sought the input of the widest possible audience, but there
>> > are, inevitably, many from whom we were unable to hear, because they, by
>> > virtue of being offline, are unable to hear us...
>> >
>> > so, if you can provide us with specific cases, scenarios, and solutions,
>> > please do so, and we will fill as many holes as possible,
>> >          gregory.
>ABSURDITY, n.  A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with
>one's own opinion.       -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devils' Dictionary_
>Gregory J. Rosmaita      <unagi69@concentric.net>
>Camera Obscura           <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html>
>VICUG NYC                <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/>
>Read 'Em & Speak         <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/books/>

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Chair, W3C WAI User Agent Working Group
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248

E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu

WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2000 10:00:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:31 UTC