- From: Charles Oppermann <chuckop@MICROSOFT.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 09:15:06 -0800
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, "gregory j. rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
<< Navigation and manipulation by this tree provides a great improvement in accessibility of the document to users of devices which are inherently slower than large visual displays, as well as to authors of large documents, or people with various cognitive disabilities. >> Can you give some real world data to support these claims of "great improvement in accessibility" and "significant accessibility gain"? How are you arriving at these conclusions? The W3C has usability specialists on staff - maybe they can conduct a study to find out the actual benefit achieved by various groups of people with disabilities. << In the second case I would argue for a P2, and for upgrading the requirement for accessible 'site maps' to P1, >> So, even though the problem has not been clearly defined, the need for a solution is debatable and greatest benefit is to the smallest set of users (document editors using speech output), there is a proposed priority already and that 1? Again, I can see that this might be helpful feature for some people editing documents, but as a developer, I'm going to have to pick and choose which features to implement. Are you saying that this feature is going to be more important than, say for example, providing accessible sample sites and templates? Or putting information in the product documentation on accessible web content creation? I propose that the working group completely table section 3 until section 2 is completed. Let's solve the problems for the 95% case and then deal with the problems in the 5% case. Charles Oppermann Program Manager, Microsoft Accessibility and Disabilities Group http://www.microsoft.com/enable/
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 1999 12:15:11 UTC