Re: Merging sections 2 and 3

I am not in favour of merging the sections.

CMN:
> 1. It makes the document clearer - there are ten guidelines about making
> tools accessible, and checkpoints which (must / should / may) be implemented
> in order to follow the guidelines. This is a good argument, although not in
> itself compelling.

JR:
I think that making this statement right up front muddies the water.
There are 7 guidelines that address how a tool can be made
document-accessibility-aware and 3 guidelines that address how to make
the tool interface-accessibility-aware. These are conceptually quite
different even though they tend to make "the communication medium" more
"accessible".

> 2. There are several guidelines where the checkpoints could apply in both
> sections. In particular the help and documentation (currently 2.7), the
> configuration of the tool (part of the current 2.6), and to a lesser extent
> section 2.4, a crossover of techniques in 3.2 and 2.3, and the fact that
> implementing 3.3 as part of the document produced will generally improve the
> documents (this follows from Jason White's comments - I'll expand in a
> separate email). Merging the sections would allow us to take advantage of
> these crossovers rather than having to very carefully define terms to make it
> clear which side we are on in each case. This seems a good argument to me.

Yes documentation and configuration have a role in
interface-accessibility-awareness but that role is very different than
the author acceptance and education roles they play in
document-accessibility-awareness. It would be messy to talk about
allowing the author to configure checker timing and the font size in the
same place.

> 3. Seperating the sections can give the impression that there are two
> completely separate parts to accessibility - disabled people being enabled
> to read the web, and then actually enabling them to help make it. This runs
> counter to the idea that a communications medium only works when people can
> use it to communicate, and that in a good medium disability should not be a
> barrier, instead reinforcing the perspective that accessibility is an option
> that can be added for marketing purposes, or out of special charity. This is
> substantially a philosophical issue, but I find it a very strong argument to
> merge the sections.

There ARE completely separate part to accessibility. In fact, WAI splits
them into 3 parts big enough to fit into 3 documents. Are document is
just unfortunate in that it straddles two parts that are just separate
enough that they need to be split into sections for clarity.

I think clarity would be enhanced by having a Guidelines section (i.e.
2) that is subdivided into A(what is now 2) and B(what is now 3) but
that would mean checkpoints like 2.A.7.1 and that is pushing it.

Basically, structure is desirable in a document when real difference
exist. It helps accessibility and understandability and I think it is
necessary in this instance.

-- 
Jan Richards
jan.richards@utoronto.ca
Department of Zoology
University of Toronto

Received on Thursday, 6 May 1999 14:44:08 UTC