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

Re: Request for clarity on Consensus Item G1

From: <goliver@accease.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 11:48:22 -0800 (PST)
To: kynn-eda@idyllmtn.com
Cc: wendy@w3.org, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020127114825.26609.c000-h014.c000.wm@mail.accease.com.criticalpath.net>
Kia Ora Kynn
I am sympathetic to this type of argument but don't
agree with it in this case.
Content must be tailored to an audience or audiences
otherwise how is it going to be effective?
I believe encouraging content providers to focus on
intended audience will be beneficial because.

1. It is a basic rule of communication to consider
intended audience and for us to ignore that in our
document may help to undermine our credibility. 

2. It will help to focus content providers on who they
are excluding. 
For example, Government can't exclude anyone in its
provision of services on the web, can it?
But, a commercial organisation can and will. 

It seems to me a fundamental issue that 'intended
audience' is too often ignored on the web and that is
why we get so many inaccessible sites.

Cheers
Graham

On Sat, 26 January 2002, kynn-eda@idyllmtn.com wrote

> 
> Summarizing information which is not new:
> 
> Another danger of emphasizing the "audience" is that
web developers
> are notoriously bad at knowing their audiences
outside of an Intranet/
> Extranet/login-for-access situation, and many times
you will find
> people saying, "oh -that's- not my _intended_
audience, therefore i
> don't have to write for -them-."
> 
> Such arguments invariably prove to be harmful to
general access by a
> broad audience.  Therefore it's appropriate to speak
of "content",
> in this situation.
> 
> --Kynn

AccEase Ltd : Making on-line information accessible
Phone : +64 9 846 6995
Email : goliver@accease.com
Received on Sunday, 27 January 2002 14:48:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:18 GMT