W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > January to March 1999

sweet sixteen

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 15:40:20 -0800
Message-ID: <36E702E4.3E39465E@gorge.net>
To: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
One thread (aieee!, it's huge) was focused on the impenetrability of the
Content document.  The current version contains only 16 guidelines and
although by just reading them one might not know exactly what to do, it
is fairly clear what the meat of the issue is.

"The checkpoints have been written so that it will be possible to verify
when they have been satisfied."

This speaks worlds in terms of the use of the guidelines for an
objective evaluation (for purposes of conformance) "definition" of what
is *accessible* - which is a frequent complaint: "how can I make my site
accessible when you can't even tell me what's accessible?"  If your site
qualifies for the coveted Level P123 Conformance you're our pal.

Now we have a set of parameters by which to judge our authoring tools
and make purchasing decisions when our agencies are of a mind to
practice full inclusion.

As to the EO use of the document I feel that excerpts from the excellent
text parts will serve us well, e.g.:

"Accessible authoring does not mean avoiding images or video."

"By following these guidelines, authors can create pages that transform

"Fortunately, accessible design does not generally mean extra work (or
page duplication) and it usually benefits the Web community at large."

"Following the guidelines will generally shorten page download times and
make sites easier to manage (e.g., by sharing style sheets)."

We might consider the possibility of emphasizing certain guidelines by
making something like a pack of flash cards similar to the curriculum
slides so people attending workshop/demos will have something memorable
to take home with them.
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 1999 18:39:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:27 UTC