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

RE: Agenda

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 23:40:24 -0500
To: "GLWAI Guidelines WG \(GL - WAI Guidelines WG\)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003601c14fb3$58a604a0$066fa8c0@750>
Thanks Cynthia,

You saved me a call for specifics on this.

Do you (or anyone) see any specific impact on our guidelines?

Is there a principle we should consider for consensus?

Gregg


-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Human Factors
Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis.
Director - Trace R & D Center
Gv@trace.wisc.edu <mailto: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
<mailto:listproc@trace.wisc.edu>


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Cynthia Shelly
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 7:28 PM
To: Web Content Guidelines
Subject: RE: Agenda

On the Author and user needs conflict issue...

When we originally discussed it, the example was distracting
advertising.  The author is intentionally changing the user's focus from
what the user considers to be the primary content (the news article) to
what the author considers to be the primary content (the ad).  From the
author's viewpoint, he has made his primary content (the ad) *MORE*
accessible with by adding dancing hamsters (or whatever).

This is a real need for the author.  If he is not successful at this, he
won't get as many advertisers, or his advertisers won't pay as much, and
he'll go out of business, taking his secondary content (the news
article) with him.

The user probably won't see it this way, and will find that he has been
distracted from the primary content (the news article) by the secondary
content (the ad).
Received on Monday, 8 October 2001 00:40:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:16 GMT