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

Re: Illustrating Guidelines

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 13:18:21 +1000
Message-ID: <15100.43901.382704.247470@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Cc: apembert45@lycos.com, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, "Matt May" <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
To assume the co-chair's responsibility.

I believe there is general agreement on the following:

1. The following factors can influence the comprehensibility of
web content for people with reading, learning and/or other cognitive disabilities:

a. Language usage.

b. Availability of a spoken rendering of the content (e.g., as
generated by an assistive technology).

c. Site maps, links, and other navigational aids.

d. Customized "search" interfaces.

e. Graphics (flow charts, diagrams etc.).

f. Multimedia presentations.

g. Predictability and consistency of the interface within a single
site and, so far as possible, across multiple sites.

Note that all of these factors are recognized by WCAG 1.0 at some
priority level.

Where there is disagreement:

a. No consensus has been reached regarding the relative importance of
each of these factors under various circumstances, in relation to
different types of web sites/content, and in respect of identifiable
categories of cognitive disability.

b. There is no agreement as to which, if any, of these factors should
be treated as applicable to web sites generally (not just those
intended for people with certain types of cognitive disabilities), and
should hence be included, at some level of priority, in WCAG 2.0.

c. There are differences of opinion with respect to the question of
how content developers can and should determine whether these factors
have been adequately taken into account and implemented in the design
of their web content.

d. As a result of (c), it has been argued, though again no agreement
has been reached, that some or all of the factors should be treated as
"usability" rather than "accessibility" requirements and ought to be
treated separately in the guidelines (perhaps with a separate
conformance rating or as usability considerations that are not
reflected in the conformance statement).

e. As a special case of (a), consensus has not been reached as to
which factors should be treated as most important in the preparation
of the guidelines document itself. In particular, there is
disagreement over the efficacy of multimedia and illustrations in this

f. There is disagreement regarding how the various factors listed
above should be prioritized in the guidelines (and in particular
whether any of them should be the subject of priority 1 checkpoints).

I think this accurately captures the present situation. We need more
information and clear, focused discussion in order to resolve these
Received on Friday, 11 May 2001 23:19:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 16 February 2017 16:48:32 UTC