W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 1998

RE: Preliminary AGI Results:

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <po@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 22:33:26 -0500
To: "IG - WAI Interest Group List (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000701bdc4de$02c52420$b31afea9@compaq>
The new version promised in the email below is now on the site.

as before there is a table version and a linear version of the guidelines.
Table version is http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/19980806.htm
The linear version is http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/19980806txt.htm

DO NOT BOOKMARK THESE LINKS THOUGH.  SINCE THE VERSION WILL CHANGE.  INSTEAD
BOOKMARK THE HOME PAGE FOR GL  WHERE YOU WILL ALWAYS FIND THE LATEST.
THE URL FOR THE GL GROUP IS.
http://www.w3.org/wai/gl/



This version has incorporated as many of the following as we could
(compatibly)
cover
*	comments on the lists
*	comments made at Peterborough
*	the results of coordination talks between the chairs of all the guidelines
and tool groups

We still have a few to work on but wanted to get this out to the list for
use, study and comment.


Please do not refer to the Apr 14th version anymore.    It is superceded by
the work on this new version and is quite out of date.

You can follow the work on the new version by checking for updates on the GL
working page at any time

http://www.w3.org/wai/gl/

Thanks much

Gregg for the GL working group.

-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Human Factors
Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis.
Director - Trace R & D Center
Gv@trace.wisc.edu, http:// trace.wisc.edu /
FAX 608/262-8848
For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@ trace.wisc.edu


-----Original Message-----
From:	w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent:	Monday, August 03, 1998 12:13 PM
To:	'Kynn Bartlett'; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject:	RE: Preliminary AGI Results:

Thanks Kynn.

This is very much in line with what we have been hearing re the old
guidelines.   This is very nicely presented though and shines light on a
number of aspects we didn't have good feedback on before.

We have a new, much improved, version which we will be posting to IG very
soon (within next 10 days I would guess) that addresses the table and other
problems there were with the old Apr 14th guidelines.     If you want to
look now you can see much of this on the GL site     www.w3c.org/wai/gl .
We will be revising and updating it soon though, so  to save you reading it
all over twice to find all the changes,  (there are a slew of edits we are
currently making), you might want to wait a few days.  We'll post something
here soon on it.

Thanks again for your efforts on this.  Looking forward to comments from
everyone on the new version.

Gregg

For the GL working group


-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Human Factors
Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis.
Director - Trace R & D Center
Gv@trace.wisc.edu, http:// trace.wisc.edu /
FAX 608/262-8848
For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@ trace.wisc.edu


-----Original Message-----
From:	w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Kynn Bartlett
Sent:	Saturday, August 01, 1998 8:15 PM
To:	w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject:	Preliminary AGI Results:  What They Thought

As part of the second questionnaire in the HTML Writers Guild's
Accessibility Guidelines Implementation project, the
participants were asked to give their thoughts on specific
questions regarding the W3C's WAI guidelines for page authors
dated April 14, 1998.

The results included:

Overall Opinion:
  90% of the participants liked the guidelines document
  10% of the participants did not

Size of Document:
  74% felt the length was appropriate
  15% felt it was too short
  10% felt it was too long

Complexity:
  69% were satisfied with the complexity
  21% felt it was too technical
  10% felt it was not technical enough

Emphasis on HTML 4.0:
  56% felt the emphasis on HTML 4.0 was appropriate
  38% stated that HTML 4.0 was emphasized too much
   2% had no opinion

Emphasis on Stylesheets/CSS:
  54% felt there was _too much_ emphasis on the use of styles
  36% stated the emphasis was appropriate
  10% stated no opinion

Recommended vs. Required:
  97% understood the difference between recommended and required
   3% did not understand this difference
  92% felt the distinction is important
   5% did not feel it was an important distinction
   3% offered no opinion on the importance of the distinction

Interim vs. New:
  51% did _not_ understand the difference between Interim and New
  49% did understand the difference
  49% felt the distinction important
  25% did not feel the distinction important
  25% did not offer an opinion on the importance of the distinction

Effects of Reading the Guidelines:
  89% stated that they have new insight into accessible web design
      after reading the guidelines
   8% stated they did not
   3% did not know

These results can be used to form a general impression of how a
typical web designer reads and understands the WAI guidelines
for page authoring.  In particular, attention should be drawn
to the fact that most felt the emphasis on stylesheet usage to
be inappropriate, and the distinction between "Interim" and
"New" suggestions was not easily understood.

More complete results from the AGI project will be released as
analysis continues.  The AGI homepage is at:

http://www.hwg.org/opcenter/projects/agi/



--
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>      http://www.idyllmtn.com/~kynn/
  Owner, Idyll Mountain Internet       http://www.idyllmtn.com/
  Board member, HTML Writers Guild     http://www.hwg.org/
  Virtual Dog Show Co-Coordinator      http://www.dogshow.com/
  MLists Mailing List Service          http://www.mlists.com/
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 1998 00:14:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:40 GMT