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

RE: Instruction and Assessment

From: Hansen, Eric <ehansen@ets.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:21:28 -0500
To: "'Jon Gunderson'" <jongund@uiuc.edu>, "Hansen, Eric" <ehansen@ets.org>
Cc: "UA List (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-id: <B49B36B1086DD41187DC000077893CFB8B4784@rosnt46.ets.org>
Jon,

1. Perhaps some verbiage needs to be added to the Note for checkpoint 2.1 to
the effect that this does "not require that all content be available at all
times".
2. I suggest that the issue regarding the definition of "Text content" await
the forthcoming revision to the definition of "Text content"... The revision
may make the current discussion unecessary.

- Eric

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Gunderson [mailto:jongund@uiuc.edu]
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 1:01 PM
> To: Hansen, Eric
> Cc: UA List (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Instruction and Assessment
> 
> 
> I think language on restricting access to content for some 
> "higher" purpose 
> is very dangerous.  These are usually the reasons people site for not 
> having to deal with accessibility.  This also seems to be an 
> authoring 
> issue and I suggest taking it to WCAG for discussion there.  If WCAG 
> defines specific authoring practices for testing materials for 
> accessibility that need UA support we can deal with those 
> issues in the 
> next version of the guidelines.  In testing situations there 
> are techniques 
> that would allow the "questions" and the "answers" not to be 
> part of the 
> same content.  Even if they are part of the same content it 
> is not required 
> that the all content be available at all times.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> At 12:44 PM 1/29/2001 -0500, Hansen, Eric wrote:
> >Jon asked:
> >
> >"Can't we just reference content that in some way conforms 
> or can conform to
> >WCAG."
> >
> >My comments:
> >
> >I think that the working group already decided _not_ to 
> assert that the
> >guidelines are based upon an assumption that Web content 
> conforms to WCAG
> >1.0. In other words, the working group declined to assume 
> WCAG-conformant
> >content.
> >
> >As to whether content "could" conform to WCAG 1.0, I think 
> that it would be
> >hard to develop criteria as to whether one "could" or "could 
> not" conform.
> >
> >My main point is that, just as as there may be cases in 
> which access may be
> >restricted to some content by virtue of security or other 
> considerations,
> >there may situations in education, notably educational 
> testing, where to
> >provide access to "all content" (e.g., right answers), would 
> render the
> >content useless for its intended purpose.
> >
> >I am basically satisfied with the most relevant wording, 
> which points out
> >that:
> >
> >"Restricted functionality and conformance"
> >
> >"There may be scenarios where a content provider wishes to 
> limit the user's
> >full access to content. For instance, a content provider may 
> wish to limit
> >access to content through an API (e.g., to protect 
> intellectual property
> >rights, or for security reasons), or to provide a 
> "read-only" view (allowing
> >no user interaction). A valid conformance claim remains 
> valid even when the
> >functionality of a conforming user agent is restricted in a 
> particular
> >setting. The validity of a conformance claim will be 
> seriously jeopardized
> >if a user agent does not meet the requirements of this document for
> >general-purpose content.
> >
> >"Note: The User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group 
> recognizes that
> >further work is necessary in the area of digital rights 
> management as it
> >relates to accessibility."
> >
> >I don't know that the working group needs to describe in 
> detail what is or
> >is not "general-purpose content". The reason I think that 
> the language of
> >"Text content..." needs to be changed is to avoid the 
> implication that
> >educational content is necessarily general-purpose.
> >
> >  -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jon Gunderson [mailto:jongund@uiuc.edu]
> > > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 12:24 PM
> > > To: Hansen, Eric; 'Ian Jacobs'; Hansen, Eric
> > > Cc: UA List (E-mail); Ian Jacobs (E-mail)
> > > Subject: RE: Instruction and Assessment
> > >
> > >
> > > Can't we just reference content that in some way conforms or
> > > can conform to
> > > WCAG.  I really don't think we need to start stating all of
> > > the different
> > > potential sources and uses of content.  This seems to be a
> > > discussion that
> > > should be in WCAG, not UAAG.
> > >
> > > Jon
> > >
> > >
> > > At 10:26 AM 1/26/2001 -0500, Hansen, Eric wrote:
> > > >You have anticipated my response.
> > > >
> > > >The principle is that Web-based tests and instruction are
> > > not necessarily
> > > >considered "general-purpose content." Rather, they may, at
> > > least in some
> > > >circumstances, be considered "special-purpose content."
> > > >
> > > >In order to align the remainder of the document with this
> > > approach, I think
> > > >that this approach may also necessitate a change to the
> > > definition of "Text
> > > >content...", which, of course is under revision anyway.
> > > Essentially, I would
> > > >suggest that, pending further revision, the following phrase
> > > be deleted:
> > > >"that content represents a general mix of purposes
> > > (information, education,
> > > >entertainment, commerce)".
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 6:54 PM
> > > > > To: Hansen, Eric
> > > > > Cc: UA List (E-mail); Ian Jacobs (E-mail)
> > > > > Subject: Re: Instruction and Assessment
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "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
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
> > > Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
> > > Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
> > > MC-574
> > > College of Applied Life Studies
> > > University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
> > > 1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820
> > >
> > > Voice: (217) 244-5870
> > > Fax: (217) 333-0248
> > >
> > > E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
> > >
> > > WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
> > > WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
> > >
> > >
> 
> Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
> Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
> Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
> MC-574
> College of Applied Life Studies
> University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
> 1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820
> 
> Voice: (217) 244-5870
> Fax: (217) 333-0248
> 
> E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
> 
> WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
> WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 29 January 2001 15:29:42 UTC

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