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

Re: WCAG 2.0 usage scenarios

From: Bazzmann.Com - Marco Trevisan <info@bazzmann.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:23:38 +0200
Message-ID: <3D93186A.80404@bazzmann.com>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Wendy A Chisholm wrote:

Hi Wendy!
It's a good stuff!

I'm a bit doubtful around the designer definition:

"Layout Designer, Stylistic Designer, Interaction Designer,
Navigation Designer"

I think Layout and Stylistic Designer are redundant because of
is the same role, a webdesigner has to know both roles basically.
It could be different the Interaction and Navigation Designer and
both from the Layout designer, but Layout and Style are the same
thing for me, in Italy we call it normally Web Designer.

So, I'm asking myself if it's a good thing to split them in
different roles or it is better to keep them one. I think that
peoples who begin to understand accessibility (specially outside
USA) could ask: "ok, there's so many roles... but, we're the
roles for webdesigner?"

Is it right to apply them? Or there are other roles for me?

Just a doubt.

 > 1. it is difficult for people new to WCAG to piece together all of the
 > pieces.  They need a roadmap. Since the resources include those written

I agree. I think beginners need a roadmap and they need a clear
reference to relationships that are linked from WCAG to others
workgroups. A lot of peoples think that Bobby validation is the
goal of WAI-AAA accessibility.

 > element to describe the document."  Some people would rather see a
 > testable statement such as, "Check that each HTML element has a TITLE
 > element."  Matt has me thinking that we might want both types of

I think that "human" statement (the second example) works better.

 > 1. Is it helpful to complete the exercise begun at [1]?

Yes. Good.

 > 2. Is it helpful to create a roadmap of how the pieces of WCAG 2.0 fit
 > together?  Will a roadmap help WCAG WG move forward on WCAG 2.0?

I think roadmap is necessary! :)

 > 3. How do people feel about two levels of detailed statements at the
 > technology-specific level?  Any reactions to [3]?

Many peoples feel the statement "Use the TITLE element to describe the
document" too difficult to understand (it is too programmer-side) and
they feel better the second statement.

They need simple words to understand.


Bazzmann Labs(c) - Accessibilita', usabilita', webdesign e standard W3C
http://www.bazzmann.it      | Il sito ufficiale di Bazzmann Labs.
http://www.bazzmann.com     | La risorsa per informare e aggiornare.
http://www.dev2dev.it       | Elemento D2D002
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 10:18:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:42 UTC