W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: Illustrating Guidelines

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 06:52:35 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010511065235.007f6d80@pop.erols.com>
To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>, "Matt May" <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
Cc: "3WC WCAG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "William Loughborough" <love26@gorge.net>
Jason,

	Not to be argumentive, but what "hard data" did you use to establish alt
tags and scripts of sound files? What "hard data" was used to establish the
need for redundent text links when a sitemap is used? What "hard data" is
used to establish the need for a syncronized script to multi-media? 

				Anne

At 02:07 PM 5/11/01 +1000, Jason White wrote:
>Perhaps it would indeed be better to create a separate, multimedia
>presentation based on the guidelines than to insist that every
>guideline and/or checkpoint be illustrated. Also, though there has
>been much discussion on this thread, there has been little, if any,
>"hard data" regarding the extent to which, given a document of this
>nature, illustrations will aid comprehension (for people with
>disabilities in particular or for readers more generally), and if so what
>kinds of illustrations are needed, and in what context. Further, it
>may (or may not) be more effective to improve the document by
>clarifying the language used, than to introduce superfluous graphics.
>
>What we need, I think, and this is clearly lacking in the whole
>discussion of "cognitive" issues as they pertain to the guidelines, is
>firm (non-anacdotal) evidence of what factors most influence the
>comprehensibility of different classes of content, for which groups of
>potential readers, and under what conditions. In that case, at least,
>one can provide a prioritized list of factors which document and web
>site editors can take into consideration should they wish to make
>their publications more accessible to people with cognitive
>disabilities.
>
>Needless to say, these are my personal observations and are not made
>in my capacity as working group co-chair. To move this discussion
>forward, however, I think there is a need for well researched and
>credible evidence as to what techniques are most useful in improving
>comprehension. Those which can be applied across a broad variety of
>web content warrant a place in WCAG 2.0 checkpoints; those of more
>limited applicability are nevertheless important and should either be
>treated as "usability" requirements, or placed in a separate document
>intended for content developers who want to optimize their
>publications for audiences that include people with 
>(particular kinds of) cognitive disabilities.
>
>
Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Friday, 11 May 2001 06:44:26 GMT

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