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

Re: Rewrite of Introduction: Purpose

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:59:59 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Jo Miller <jo@bendingline.com>, "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, "WAI Guidelines WG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Jo, following are some examples you may want to consider ....
For example: A site with well-illustrated content will not only be usable 
to reading disabled adults, but may extend the use of the content to school 

For example: a site with a movie that includes an audio description in the 
sound track, could be listened to by someone  using a cell phone, as on a 
long drive.

For example: a site with a sound track includes a view of a text version of 
the sounds could be used by a deaf person, or by someone in a noisy 


At 09:07 AM 8/17/01 -0400, Jo Miller wrote:
>Thanks for undertaking the rewrite (and so quickly!). And by the way, 
>thanks again to Wendy for laboring so hard even on her birthday.
>A couple of comments:
>>This document outlines design principles for creating accessible Web sites.
>Agree with the omission of "attractive," which you raised in yesterday's 
>telecon. So far I'm with you on omitting "usable" as well, because WCAG 
>2.0, while it touches on a number of sound usability principles, is not 
>primarily about usability, nor does it claim to cover that topic 
>thoroughly. As we discussed yesterday, a designer could follow all the 
>guidelines and still create an ugly site. She could follow all the 
>guidelines and still create a site that falls short in terms of usability, 
>for this group has not been tasked with writing a thorough treatment of 
>user-interface design. But someone following the guidelines will not fail 
>to create an accessible site--at least, that's our aim. These are just my 
>thoughts. I know you have a lot to say on the subject of usability and I 
>look forward to reading it.
>The point that attractiveness (or appealing design, or whatever you want 
>to call it) and accessibility are not mutually exclusive certainly 
>deserves to be made. And it's also true that following accessibility 
>principles--particularly as they've been presented in WCAG 2.0--will 
>almost inevitably produce dramatic improvements in a site's overall 
>usability. But I think you're probably right that the place to make these 
>points is not in the sentence that states the purpose of the Guidelines.
>I would add that when we find ourselves needing to use italics for 
>emphasis in a sentence, it's usually (though not always) a sign that the 
>sentence is weak and needs to be rewritten. I think your rewrite is stronger.
>>  By making content
>>accessible to a variety of devices, the content is now accessible to people
>>in a variety of situations.
>This sentence, which is from the current draft, is ungrammatical. Were we 
>trying to avoid using "you"? Or could we say something like "By making 
>content accessible to a variety of devices, you make that content 
>accessible to people in a variety of situations as well"?
>>  For example, many bar owners enable the captions
>>on the television sets in their bars because the background noise in the bar
>>makes hearing the television impossible.
>Pulling this analogy up into the paragraph preceding was a good move, I 
>think, but "For example" is not the right introductory phrase, because 
>captioned television is not an example of a web-enabled device. The 
>television thing was brought in as an analogy or parallel from another 
>area of life where accessibility measures make something more usable, 
>convenient, or accessible for non-disabled people. (The wheelchair-ramp 
>analogy is often used in this way.) Calling it an example in a paragraph 
>devoted to web content is therefore confusing.
>Adding an example of web accessibility just before the television analogy 
>might help, and in fact I think a web example may be needed to clarify 
>what we're talking about in the sentence about "people in a variety of 
>situations." (We've enumerated devices but not situations.) What do people 
>think about this?
>Jo Miller

Anne Pemberton

Received on Friday, 17 August 2001 11:18:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:38 UTC