- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:55:14 -0700
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
A dear friend and gifted writer - also a skilled Web designer and
accessibility specialist writes:
"Obviously, I've only given it the most cursory of glances so far, but my
first impression was that it's refreshingly lacking in the usual
gobblydygook language of academia that's come to characterize most
documentation of the W3C et al. I'm telling you, William, most people don't
understand, much less use, words like "normative," and because they don't,
they're put off by guidelines and recommendations that do. It seems to
trigger some kind of defeatist attitude ("Yuck. I'm too dumb to do this
because I don't even understand the instructions.") even before it sets off
the lazy gene. ("Bleh. Too much work, this 'retrofitting.'")
"Guideline Guide tickled me."
Aside from the fact that she probably knows what I would like to hear in
this regard, I think this is a very typical reaction to our document. Yes,
we need a normative document but IMO it needs to be almost hidden away.
More to the point is that if it can be presented in small bites, as called
for, it might be less daunting. The way-too-extensive boiler plate at the
beginning of each document is like the credits of a movie - one wonders at
why they're being shown.
Of course, I could be wrong.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2000 15:55:29 UTC