W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2004

RE: 3.3- time to take a step back?

From: lisa seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 09:08:35 +0200
To: 'Andy Heath' <a.k.heath@shu.ac.uk>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <002001c3ea24$8dbad5e0$340aa8c0@patirsrv.patir.com>


Spot on Andy.

 We need clear use cases, with definitions of the different disabilities
strength and weaknesses.

I wrote this up to the list about two years ago

Link http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2001AprJun/0437.html

It may be a good start for dyslexia if somewhat out of date

Please don't hate me for saying so but...I would be interested in a
interim document (dare I say deliverable) that defined this stuff..



All the best
Lisa Seeman
 
Visit us at the UB Access website
UB Access - Moving internet accessibility
 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Heath [mailto:a.k.heath@shu.ac.uk] 
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 10:54 AM
> To: lisa seeman
> Cc: 'Wendy A Chisholm'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: Re: 3.3- time to take a step back?
> 
> 
> Sorry to just butt in.
> 
> I agree with your main point here Lisa.  Maybe
> the components of a solution coupld encompass
> work outside w3 as well - for example a guideline
> and Meta-data on content that work together.
> 
> I'm fairly new to knowing how w3 processes work but
> I do know that the way many other people do this stuff
> is to focus solutions around use-cases , which I think
> is a kind-of half way house between unstructured working
> and the completely planned road-map approach.  Are there 
> use-cases for this process somewhere ?
> 
> andy
> a.k.heath@shu.ac.uk
> 
> > Looking back at 3.3 and guidelines for designing web content for 
> > Learning and cognitive disabilities.
> > 
> > Before creating this guideline we have done a review of 
> clear writing 
> > guidelines across the world, but, these guidelines were not 
> concerned 
> > about issues like freedom of speech and adoptability. Which made it 
> > easer for them.
> > 
> > 
> > On the other hand they did not have the advantages that technology 
> > protocols and innovation can provide.
> > 
> > I think maybe we need to take a step back and have a taskforce to 
> > explore  end to end methodologies for helping learning disabilities 
> > combined with protocols.
> > 
> > For example lexical linking could work well to allow 
> simplification at 
> > the client end, without
> > 
> > However just putting ideas directly into a guideline may not be the 
> > best way to do it. Ideally one could do something like this:
> > 
> > 1, Build clear problem statement
> > 2, Build profiles of who we need to recruit
> > 3, Build the taskforce,
> > 4, Have a preliminary deliverable of docvument(s) that 
> clearly state 
> > parameters and the extent and nature of  user needs ,author needs, 
> > barriers to adoptions. 5, Have a preliminary deliverable of 
> potential 
> > directions for solutions and options
> > 6, Post review decide on what directions to developed
> > (Funding too would help)
> > 7,  Develop integrated guidelines/ techniques for user 
> agents, authoring
> > tools and content providers
> > 
> > In other words , move away from directly writing the guideline and 
> > build a road map to address this issue.
> > 
> > It may seem like a long road, but it may, in the end, be 
> quicker and 
> > more productive then endless circular arguments. We may 
> even be able 
> > to release 2.0 with a place holder to this work.
> > 
> > All the best
> > Lisa Seeman
> >  
> > Visit us at the UB Access website
> > UB Access - Moving internet accessibility
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
> >>[mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Wendy A Chisholm
> >>Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 6:26 AM
> >>To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> >>Subject: 22 Jan 2004 - WCAG WG Teleconference Minutes
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Available at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/01/22-minutes.html
> >>
> >>Action Items
> >>ACTION: gregg and ben take first pass at proposal for
> >>rewriting 4.1 and 4.2 
> >>based on today's discussion.
> >>ACTION: gregg propose reorg of 3.1, 3.2, 3.3
> >>ACTION: john determine from list in 3.3 which items apply 
> >>across all sites 
> >>(level 2) from those that are less widely applicable (level 3)
> >>
> >>--
> >>wendy a chisholm
> >>world wide web consortium
> >>web accessibility initiative
> >>http://www.w3.org/WAI/
> >>/-- 
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> andy
> _______________________________________________
> Andy Heath
> Sheffield Hallam University
> andy@andyheath.org.uk
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2004 02:10:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:54 UTC