W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Instruction and Assessment

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:53:49 -0500
Message-ID: <3A70BC8D.F2302B96@w3.org>
To: "Hansen, Eric" <ehansen@ets.org>
CC: "UA List (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, "Ian Jacobs (E-mail)" <ijacobs@w3.org>
"Hansen, Eric" wrote:
> Known Limitation of the UA Guidelines regarding Instruction and Assessment
> In section 1.3, I suggest adding a known limitation regarding effectiveness
> of instruction or assessments. 

Hi Eric,

Here's an argument against adding this: Section 1.2 of the 16 Jan
draft [1] includes this statement:

   This document was designed specifically to improve 
   the accessibility of mainstream user agents with multimedia 
   capabilities for users with one or more disabilities 
   (including visual, hearing, physical, and cognitive).
   In this context, a mainstream user agent is one designed 
   for the general public to handle general-purpose content 
   in ordinary operating conditions. 

Instructions and assessments would not be
general-purpose content; this is a particular environment
with particular restrictions.

So is your concern adequately addressed by the existing statement?

 - Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010116/#target

> This is important because provision of
> alternative representations is central to our accessibility strategy, yet
> depending on what is being taught or assessed, provision of such
> alternatives may 'short circuit' or damage the validity of an assessment or
> the teaching effectiveness of an instructional module. How this potential
> for damage is addressed is highly specific to the purpose of the instruction
> and assessment as well as to the intended audience.
> New:
> "Effectiveness of instruction or assessments. The document does not address
> issues of effectiveness of instruction or assessments, such as how provision
> of alternative content may affect inferences about what a person knows or
> can do in an instructional or assessment setting. For example, the nature of
> inferences that one could draw about a user's ability to understand an
> auditory presentation may be influenced by an accessibility-motivated
> provision of a text equivalent of the presentation."
> Other edits are being sent directly to Ian Jacobs.

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 25 January 2001 18:53:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:29 UTC