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

Defining the needs of people with CD

From: Jonathan Chetwynd <jay@peepo.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 13:24:48 -0000
Message-ID: <011301bf9018$5d5aa660$2a419fd4@myworkstation>
To: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>, "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I am sorry that members have difficulty understanding what the needs of
people that are cognitively challenged are.
This is not a fault of Anne or mine.

Creating guidelines that solve this issue is a fantasy.
People are individuals and have individual abilities and needs.
If we could define the problem, we'd be out of a job.
Trying to create solutions is a job for all, and there is almost nothing
that can be said, that will help.

It's a case of action.

If you think you've created, or found a site that's of interest and
accessible, especially if it links to others similar, we'd love to know.

In the meantime the reality is that the Guidelines are a mile away from
meeting that need.
P1 compliance is not relevant currently.

jay@peepo.com

Jonathan Chetwynd
special needs teacher and
web accessibility consultant.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: Text equivalents and cognitive considerations


> It should be noted in this discussion that checkpoint 14.1, requiring the
> "clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site" to be used, is at
> a priority 1 level, reflecting the importance which the working group
> attributes to it.
>
> I think the suggestion to require every web page to include graphics or
> other non-textual components is deeply flawed, for although there are many
> circumstances in which this would aid comprehension, there are others in
> which it would not do so. The guidelines therefore suggest that graphics
> be used where these would assist in the comprehension of the material.
> There are two areas where I think we can make advances, either in the
> guidelines themselves or in the techniques document:
>
> 1. The provision of more detailed advice as to what constitutes the clear
> and simple language and how to judge appropriateness (this is very
> difficult to do, as evinced by the debate surrounding readability measures
> last year in which it was generally agreed that these were unhelpful in
> the present context).
>
> 2. The development of more specific advice as to what kinds of non-textual
> material are most valuable in improving comprehension and the contexts in
> which they should be employed.
>
> It should however be remembered that the guidelines are intended to be
> applicable to all web sites; hence the requirements (at the three priority
> levels recognised in the document) have to be framed in such a way that
> they can be satisfied irrespective of the subject matter with which the
> web content is concerned, ranging from a site intended for primary school
> children to a site devoted to particle physics (incidentally, the web
> originated in a particle physics laboratory).
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 17 March 2000 08:57:40 GMT

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