Re: Rewording of Introduction

I received 3 comments from developers about the introduction/guidelines:

Developer 1 said:
The revision seems better to me.

Developer 2 said:
The logic of this sentence is mind boggling quote Since the Web is both a means
of receiving information and communicating information, it is important that
both the web content produced and the authoring tool itself be accessible.
endquote.   I think the sentence is constructed just to restate the accessible
tool requirement and the same logic could be used to require engine maintenance
courses for a drivers license.

I want accessible tools too. But the overwhelming issue is accessible content.
When the introduction does not give that impression, the introduction fails.
The focus of *several* sentences is the accessibility of the tool. The first
sentence, "accessible authoring tool..." - in common parlance that means
software accessibility.  The first goal is software accessibility. I claim the
"communicating information" sentence is there for the purpose of accessible
software.

I much prefer the prior introduction wording.
End Developer 2

Developer 3 said:
Phill,
The rewording is fine.  However, I think the nature of the authoring tool
guideline is too stringent.  A tool can create accessible Web pages without
being accessible itself.  I thought the guideline was meant to dictate what a
tool should create.  Shouldn't the authoring tool requirements be evaluated
separately?  I agree that in an ideal world that all software would be
accessible, but shouldn't we take it one step at a time?  To ask a developer to
put requirements into his/her software so the tool is creating accessible Web
pages is only asking him/her to modify the features of the product.  To ask a
developer to make his/her software accessible may be asking for a total redesign
of the tool itself.  This is too much too soon.  A guideline shouldn't overwhelm
developers so much so that they decide it's all too much and do nothing at all.
End Developer 3

These comments are being sent to the list as example of reaction to the
Intro/guidelines.  It's not necessary to discuss each comment and debate whether
or not the developer got the "right impression". But their reaction should be
taken into consideration in our decisions.  More at the call

Regards,
Phill Jenkins     512-838-4517
Accessibility Program Manager

Received on Wednesday, 1 September 1999 15:02:29 UTC