I don't know how many people noticed or missed Wendy's invitation for people to join the content guidelines working group in an in-depth review of this area. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/1999AprJun/thread.html#612 While it is not immediately clear what should be done in this area, there is plausible evidence that more could be done. It's a good idea to take a closer look at what that might be. Please extend to the working group a little suspension of judgement on where to draw the line or build any walls until they have a time to dig a little deeper around the roots of these problems. Al At 05:40 PM 6/18/99 -0400, 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 >Received on Saturday, 19 June 1999 13:41:31 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:49:00 GMT