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

RE: Consensus Items on User, User, and Author Conflicts

From: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 10:13:03 -0700
Message-ID: <7164D4266FD7B94CA59D551C7FE6618D0278C0EF@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "GLWAI Guidelines WG (GL - WAI Guidelines WG)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I'm afraid I can't agree with G3...

<consensus-item>
G-3.	Where Author and User needs conflict such that the Author cannot
meet the User needs, then an alternate form which is accessible needs to be provided that is as close to the original functionality as is technically possible.
</consensus-item>

When we originally discussed this particular "elephant" the example given was distracting advertising.  I posted a description of this scenario a couple days ago, included here

<posting>
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 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).
</posting>

I don't think the above consensus item addresses this issue.  The author has to provide a secondary page without the distracting ad?  How can he make this close to the original functionality when the original functionality was to draw the user's attention to the ad?  His very real need still isn't met.  Plus, he's now being asked to build and host a secondary page which will never pay for itself, and which might allow users to see the secondary content (the news article) without the primary content (the ad).   


-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] 
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 9:03 AM
To: GLWAI Guidelines WG (GL - WAI Guidelines WG)
Subject: Consensus Items on User, User, and Author Conflicts



We addressed BIG ISSUES 14 and 15 in the call and came up with consensus statements.  These issues were:

14.	Author and User needs conflict.

15.	User and User needs conflict.


The consensus statements we came up with were:

G-3.	Where Author and User needs conflict such that the Author cannot
meet the User needs, then an alternate form which is accessible needs to be provided that is as close to the original functionality as is technically possible.

and

G-4.	User vs. User needs is something we need to look at on a
case-by-case basis, but it is also a test we need to apply to every normative requirement anyway.  "If this done, is some group being cut out?"



Any comments before we post these to the Consensus Collection?

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>
Received on Monday, 8 October 2001 13:13:35 GMT

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