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

Re: Illustrating Guidelines

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 08:29:53 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>, Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Cc: apembert45@lycos.com, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, "Matt May" <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>

    The first thing that hit me as I read this is your inclusion of
graphics as  "flow charts" and "diagrams" instead of illustrations
including drawings, pictures, photos. The issue is less about how to
include them, and is more about the need for them to be present. 

As to usability as something less than accessibility, I am strongly
inclined to put the two of equal footing, as you don't have "accessibility"
if the result of applying accessibility guidelines doesn't result in a page
that is usable. 


At 01:18 PM 5/12/01 +1000, Jason White wrote:
>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
>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
Anne Pemberton

Received on Saturday, 12 May 2001 08:21:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:37 UTC