W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: Comments about Visual Friendly point of view about accessibi lity and WCAG

From: Jérôme Ernu <jernu@VisualFriendly.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 12:20:57 +0200
Message-ID: <E64385C0E894544F97DDE0A64617663F0FF333@visualserver.visual.com>
To: "'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Thank you for this analysis of making content accessible to people with
visual disabilities and how your product and research can help web sites
do this.
=> It was a pleasure :)

You make many points that we have discussed within the working group. Do
you have a specific proposal to change something in WCAG 2.0?
=> We have certainly gone through already discussed point but it was not
our intention (WCAG archives are really big you know !).
Does a kind of specific proposal for WCAG 2.0 would be to put a
direction towards standardization of the web interfaces navigation ? We
have oberved at what point it is important for the visually impaired...
And we think this can only be profitable for all web users !

You describe how VisualFriendly deals with various situations, but are
there general principles or techniques that we can suggest to others?
Perhaps you would like to contribute to the server-side techniques
=> Maybe could we contribute to server-side techniques document ? We
need some precisions about this, could you tell me more please ? 

You said, "Specific guidelines for each impairment will improve overall
accessibility."  However, many of our current checkpoints apply to more
than one disability, there is quite a lot of overlap.
=> We meant that more than guidelines usefull for improving overall
accessibility, it is possible to create "impairement specific
guidelines" which can improve much more accessibility for single
impairments ! And by the way, improving general accessibility.
We are not sure that all recommandations of the WCAG are good for all in
a user experience point of view : for example we have an accessibility
expert there, visually impaired, who cannot stand "title" on links (Is
he representative ? I do not really know... but he understands that it
is usefull for blind people, but founds that is a source of annoyance
for him).

It is our intent to clarify which checkpoints benefit which types of
disabilities (refer to our Requirements document, #5 [1]). Some people
have suggested we create an "impact matrix" by disability.
=> We are agree with the notion of "impact matrix" and a kind of
conformity with checkpoints for impairements. Does it mean that a
website could be "compliant" with visual accessibility or hearing
accessibility criteria ?

I don't think it is likely for us to write separate sets of guidelines
for each type of disability, but we can at least show how the checkpoint
that we do have benefit each disability.  Also, please keep in mind that
people often have a variety of abilities/disabilities.  We try to keep
that in mind in our work to make sure that a strategy to help one type
of disability does not inversely effect another type of disability.
=> We do not understand why it is not "likely"  to write separate sets
of guidelines. May be could it be done in the following of "impact
matrix" ? Could we put on the frontline checkpoints used for special
impairments ? propose


Received on Friday, 12 April 2002 06:21:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:41 UTC