this is where we were at the beginning of the qed thread I believe. It was my first impulse that there is a clear dichotomy with respect to providing for the rendering of content and providing content in a certain style. Thanks people, this has been a good exercise. It has raised my awareness of the issues and needs to the point where I wil follow with interest and substance where possible future developments and understand the differences with respect to understanding and access more fully. Chuck Hitchcock wrote: > > >Wayne Meyers wrote: I don't agree. I want to dismiss the problem. > > >WM also wrote: Conflating accessibility issues with understandability issues > could prove horribly counter-productive and could diminish the potential > impact of the > WAI campaign to improve the quality of markup out there. > > CH: I sure don't want to dismiss the problem but feel that a wall needs to be > put up between the > > 1. "universal design for learning issues" > 2. "understanding meaning issues" > 3. "the organization of content issues" > > and the existing page content author guidelines. > > In general, I agree with your thoughts on this in relation to the existing > charter for the W3C Web Access Initiative. > > Many of the issues that impact potential cognitive guidelines have been or > will be discussed by human factors folks and much could be done by those who > already do this work. I do think that guidelines are possible but agree with > you they should not be co-mingled with the accessible content guidelines. > > Chuck -- Hands-On Technolog(eye)s Touching The Internet: mailto:poehlman@clark.net Voice: 301.949.7599 ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/poehlman http://poehlman.clark.net Dynamic Solutions Inc. Best of service for your small business network needs! http://www.dnsolutions.com ---sig off---Received on Friday, 18 June 1999 18:02:23 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 18:14:01 GMT