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

RE: Practical considerations and 1.0 [ was Agenda

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 12:59:42 -0600
To: "'Leonard R. Kasday'" <kasday@acm.org>, "GL - WAI Guidelines WG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002001c0895c$7a2add80$066fa8c0@750>
This is a very interesting suggestion.    Don't know if it will work at
first try.. but we do somehow need to separate our discussions of
"what makes something accessible"
from our discussions of
"what is practical today"

Hmmmmm.    I don't think putting them in separate places works.  But
"UNLESS" might.
That approach has the following potential problems though.

1- it is really the same as "IF" which we have been trying to avoid for
several reasons
2- the UNLESS must not be ambiguous
3- the UNLESS might look like a list.  If so - how do we know we included
all the exceptions that we need to?

Still,
We need to carry out this discussion

Gregg


-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Human Factors
Depts of Ind. and Biomed. Engr. - U of Wis.
Director - Trace R & D Center
Gv@trace.wisc.edu, http://trace.wisc.edu/
FAX 608/262-8848
For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@trace.wisc.edu


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]  On
Behalf Of Leonard R. Kasday
Sent:	Thursday, January 25, 2001 2:55 PM
To:	w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject:	Practical considerations and 1.0 [ was  Agenda

Re the question about how much work to put into 1.0

I think the major problem with the 1.0 issues is that they quickly resolve
to a major consideration, discussion of which we've been postponing.  And I
think postponing resolution of this issue may well cost us time in the long
run, since we may have to revisit everything, depending on it's resolution.

The consideration is: how do we deal with business and other practical
considerations, such as  the need to have blinking banner ads (which led to
including the word "minimize" in the 2.0 distraction guideline)  There are
business considerations for other guidelines also which we've been
ignoring, e.g. the requirement that transcripts be included (what if a
company wants to sell transcripts?), or the requirement to have good
navigation (what if company wants users to drill down through pages to get
additional ad exposures; cf. House of Blues' lawsuit against Streambox, a
service that offered shortcuts into House of Blues' content)


As I've mentioned, I think we should handle this by factoring practical
considerations into a separate section, which will allow us to keep
guidelines and checkpoints themselves absolutely free of compromises  (e.g.
"minimize") while allowing for understandable and legitimate business and
other practical concerns in the separate section.

We can then handle future 1.0 problems as follows.  Each time we hit a 1.0
argument that resolves into balancing accessibility with practical
considerations, we resolve in the form

"Do X except when section Y applies"

Where X is uncompromising in terms of accessibility, and competing factors
go into Y.

In 1.0 we can make Y rather ad-hoc, putting in just enough to satisfy 1.0
issues.  In 2.0 we try to do something more philisophically neat.

This may seem like a distraction from just getting though guidelines and
checkpoints, but we'll have to do it eventually, and I think it will save
time in the long run if we settle it now.  Otherwise, we'll be considering
practical considerations sometimes (e.g. "minimize"), but not always, and
after all our wordsmithing we'll have to go back and redo all the items
that weren't consistent with our resolution.

Len

--
Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
Institute on Disabilities/UAP and Dept. of Electrical Engineering at Temple
University
(215) 204-2247 (voice)                 (800) 750-7428 (TTY)
http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday         mailto:kasday@acm.org

Chair, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Tools Group
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/

The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant:
http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/
Received on Sunday, 28 January 2001 14:00:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:09 GMT