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

RE: Instruction and Assessment

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:00:36 -0600
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20010130125734.0135deb0@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: "Hansen, Eric" <ehansen@ets.org>
Cc: "'UA List (E-mail) '" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Eric,
1. Are you talking about some specialized user agent technology for taking 
tests?

2. Are you talking about authoring using HTML and scripting?

Jon



At 09:54 AM 1/30/2001 -0500, Hansen, Eric wrote:
>One follow-up thought.
>
>Perhaps one way to think about this issue is that the User Agent should "by
>default" not restrict access to any content. If some content uses the user
>agent to restrict access to certain content (or even if the user agent makes
>it easy for the content author to restrict access) to some content (e.g.,
>for security or other special purposes or applications) then that is okay.
>It is not the responsibility of user agent developers to forbid such
>activity, but rather to ensure that in the default situation, the user would
>have access to all content. Obviously, the realization of full access will
>be dependent on authors developing content that permits such access (e.g.,
>following WCAG 1.0, other accessibility conventions, etc.).
>
>Isn't this approach in keeping with our delineation of responsibilities? Do
>we lose anything by taking this approach? I suppose that such an approach
>impinges on our UAAG 1.0 checkpoints insofar as user agents product content
>(one checkpoint).
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jon Gunderson
>To: Hansen, Eric
>Cc: UA List (E-mail)
>Sent: 1/29/01 1:01 PM
>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

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 Tuesday, 30 January 2001 13:58:43 UTC

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