For what it's worth... From the Gateway draft: Editorial Note:The use of "clearly" and "concisely" makes this untestable. Will that be an issue for readers? [js: I hope not-- the idea here is to provide guidance that helps people understand what they need to do. We could add a note saying that clarity and concision require human judgment, and that such judgment should be informed by at least informal feedback from users, or at best by formal user testing.] Editorial Note: In this draft, part C of the Level 1 success criterion for Guideline 1.1 is divided into two techniques this one (music without words) and the next (visual art). Is this confusing? Should they merge into one? [js: I think it would be more confusing to treat the tasks of describing non-vocal audio and visual art somewhat differently-- the descriptive techniques and vocabularies are very different, and so is the issue of what gets "displayed," since you can't "display" audio. We may need to add a note to this effect.] "Good design is accessible design." Dr. John M. Slatin, Director Accessibility Institute University of Texas at Austin FAC 248C 1 University Station G9600 Austin, TX 78712 ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu Web <http://www.ital.utexas.edu/> http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibilityReceived on Wednesday, 28 July 2004 15:35:27 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:31 GMT