W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2006

RE: There is a structural fault with WCAG2. That editing won't resolve.

From: Slatin, John M <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 20:26:55 -0600
Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3B053EC6BC@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Jonathan Chetwynd" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Thanks, Jonathan.

As you know, two conference calls have been scheduled to gain direct
input from people with cognitive, learning, and language disabilities.
And from people who are aware of their needs.
You wrote: "Some guidelines may need to be tested** by humans."
Agreed. The Conformance section of WCAG 2.0 makes the same point. See
the second sentence below:

<"All WCAG 2.0 success criteria are testable. While some can be tested
by computer programs, others must be tested by qualified human testers."


You wrote: "I wrote this email for 2nd grade, and tested with msWord."

The use of readability formulas (like the one you used) is discussed in
"How to Meet 3.1.5."

WCAG does not require content written at second grade level. But it
would pass success criterion 3.1.5.


John
[Word says that the message above my name is at grade 7.7.]

"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.utexas.edu/research/accessibility 



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jonathan Chetwynd
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 4:37 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: There is a structural fault with WCAG2. That editing won't
resolve.



There is a structural fault with WCAG2. That editing won't resolve.

The very people who have a learning disability* must own the process.
W3C, WAI and WCAG need to involve them as well as people who are  
aware of their needs.

Some guidelines may need to be tested** by humans.
This does not make them less valid.
We still need to include them.

We need to write guidelines that can be read by 2nd grade*** students.
They are easier to understand. Then anyone can use them.

Web2.0 makes authors of us all.
We need tools with a simple interface.
One that is fun and easy to use.
With output that is accessible to us all.

No one can truly understand much of what there is on the web. Our users
need some web pages that they can enjoy.

They need to be able to:
Have fun.
Find things with ease.
Meet friends online.
Share their success and their failures.
Create stuff.
Publish it.
Play games.
Use any and all their senses.

Some may prefer pictures with their text.
Others may like sound effects.
Our senses make us what we are.

We would like to be included at the centre of the W3C process.

Regards

Jonathan Chetwynd
on behalf of more than forty groups or people that signed the formal  
objection.

* "One adult in five in the UK is not functionally literate"
http://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/mosergroup/
They have a broad range of ability. It will not be easy to please  
them all.

** We need to measure the gap between symbol and meaning.
Our users will tell us when it works: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~biglou/ has
fun ways to label with RDF.

*** Use plain English.
I wrote this email for 2nd grade, and tested with msWord.
I would need to be at least 12th grade to read Gregg's email.
Received on Saturday, 2 December 2006 02:27:08 GMT

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