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

Re: A PROPOSAL TO SPLIT THE WCAG IN THREE. Please read this. I'm serious.

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 12:51:31 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20010820123211.00a3b780@pop.erols.com>
To: "Marc David Johnson" <mjohnson@marcdavidjohnson.com>, "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, "WAI Guidelines WG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Marc,

         First of all, there are templates to use in Front Page, as in most 
MS applications, that can be used to set up forms, guest books, and tables 
of contents. Making a page in Front Page that passes Bobby isn't difficult, 
unless you are using tables for visual formatting to substitute for not 
being able to box text, then you end up having to take off the tables and 
reducing the accessibility to sighted users.

                                                 Anne

At 09:07 AM 8/20/01 -0400, Marc David Johnson wrote:
>Hello everyone,
>
>I wanted to take this (your) time and introduce myself a bit.
>
>My name is Marc David Johnson and I am a little confused. :-)
>
>I have been following this working group for a couple weeks, no posting or
>participating, just lurking. I am not quite sure where I fit into these
>discussions (as I had applied to be a member of the WAI working group but
>never heard anything and wasn't sure if my inclusion on this list meant I
>should voice my opinions, etc. or whether I was simply allowed to watch from
>the sidelines).
>
>So, I am taking a little initiative and stating my opinions so far.
>
>Breaking up the guidelines into separate sections, while not a bad idea for
>readability, would confuse readers more I believe. 1.0 is organized fairly
>well IMHO, but many people at my location can not find the samples, follow
>the links well, etc. and I had to design a condensed (20 pages isn't
>'short', but it is shorter than the full 1.0) version for them to
>understand. It has been very well received here and on my website
>(http://www.marcdavidjohnson.com/accessibility.asp) - even though my own
>personal web site isn't 100% accessible (slowing bringing things around).
>
>Perhaps 'chapterizing' the guidelines would enable the both of best worlds.
>Each chapter could contain a general theme (Accessibility, Navigability,
>Technology, Comprehensibility, etc.) but would fit into the overall theme of
>the 'book' (the guidelines) and sections could be cross-referenced (sorry,
>my database mind wants to relate everything <grin>). I could easily see a
>part on using ALT text for images in how it provides relevant information
>(Accessibility), enables those with images turned off to use the site
>(Navigability), Works with UAs (Technology) and makes a possibly
>incomprehensible image understandable (Comprehensibility - by providing a
>relevant textual description - albeit not as detailed as a [D], but some
>text description is better than none).
>
>I see accessibility as something that must be thought of 'as a whole' when
>designing a site. Sure, it is fairly easy to patch up a site and get a
>'Bobby Approved' label, but that doesn't take into account the small things
>that could be done to help the majority of visitors with some form of
>impairment from using the site. A little planning ahead can make a site both
>visually appealing (to those that have the capacity to view it) and
>accessible.
>
>One of the things that has helped the CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) movement
>on the web is the use of templates. Here developers new to CSS have a good
>starting point on which to build their sites. This is one area I found
>lacking when I went looking for accessible information a couple years ago.
>Real world examples are great but I think a sample site (or better yet a few
>different accessible templates) would be a welcome addition. Dreamweaver and
>FrontPage became popular because they brought web publishing to the masses
>in something easy to use and understand (well, sort of). They don't create
>very good code, but the idea itself (of making it easy to create) is good.
>If I, as a webmaster, had to make a site accessible and had just whipped
>something up using one of those products, I would most likely be SOL -- BUT,
>if I could download a few templates (that have some stock images, navigation
>structures, content, lists, etc.) and simply populate them with my
>ramblings, items for sale, whatever, it would make my pages accessible, I'd
>be learning a little bit about accessibility, and people could now access my
>site regardless of their abilities.
>
>Okay, I have probably rambled quite enough for an initial post. Perhaps
>someone would clear up whether I am actually a member of the group however
>and if so, should I join in the weekly meetings, etc. and annoy everyone
>with my ramblings <grin>.
>
>Thanks for reading and have a great day. :-)
>
>Marc David Johnson
>mjohnson@marcdavidjohnson.com
>http://www.MarcDavidJohnson.com
>A little bit of everything ... and a whole lot of nothing.

Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Monday, 20 August 2001 12:55:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:11 GMT