Re: Selecting & Using Software for Web Accessibility

At 12:11 PM 2/11/02 -0600, Phill Jenkins wrote:
>I agree with Charles's second comment:
> >2. I don't think it is correct to say that the ATAG reviews are not
> >up-to-date, although they may not be in some cases, and may not be
> >reviews. On the other hand I think it is important to point out that these
> >reveiws are not intended to be an exhaustive or even a particularly set,
> >are only done by the group for indicative purposes to help in assessing
> >group's own work and important directions to take.
> >
> >In other words the group expects these to be accurate, but not exhaustive
> >complete.
>I also think that the point about whether the review is up to date or not
>is in the review page maintained by ATAG, so EO should just point to it
>with perhaps a small mention about the purpose that ATAG maintains the

EOWG had discussed this approach, and felt that if EOWG did not provide 
some clarification in advance about what to expect when people found the 
AUWG page, that people would come away frustrated and/or angry. This is 
what our previous experience has been with sending people to the AUWG area 
to look at reviews; they came back very frustrated. So EOWG felt it would 
be helpful to have some initial clarification in the EOWG documents. At the 
same time, additional clarification in the AUWG document would certainly 
help also. But finally, my impression is that some updating of the AUWG 
reviews is now happening, and this issue may be less of a concern in the 
future. There was considerable interest in EOWG discussions in having more 
information to point to in the AUWG area, to the extent possible.

>Some additional comments:
>a. One page & 3 columns.  The 7 guidelines for ATAG should be moved out of
>the introduction and into the checklist.

We had tried not having it in the introduction, and felt that this left the 
reader with no clear concept of what ATAG was about. At the same time, most 
users of this document would not have the technical capability to evaluate 
authoring tools against the ATAG guidelines, so it may be self-defeating to 
make those into a checklist. But we can brainstorm various solutions for 
this concern during the EOWG meeting (today or later).

>Some of the other introductory
>materials in the later section could be moved into the Into section so the
>whole document could be collapsed to one page.  Using a visual one page of
>information is key to communicating to the masses.  I believe a 3 column
>approach would also be helpful here, that of course transforms gracefully
>to a linear mode.

Can you explain more how you envision a three-column layout here? What in 
which columns?

Also, what do you see moving into the intro? We've already moved things 
around a fair amount, so not sure which piece should move where now.

>b. More graphics.  Need more graphics or diagrams or something besides so
>much text.  EO should be concerned about communications, and pictures are
>better to communicate with the masses of non-blind web developers and
>managers.  The alt text can and should transform to the text-heavy version.
>Besides, the technical stuff is in the guidelines and technique docs and
>should not be so "technical looking" in the EO materials.
>      - for example; the checklist should look like a checklist, not a
>simple numbered list [1]
>      - another example; use the ATAG icons for types of authoring tools [2]

EOWG will discuss options & see where we get. Thanks for the suggestions.


>[3] checklist formatted in a table
>Phill Jenkins,  (512) 838-4517
>IBM Research Division - Accessibility Center

Judy Brewer    +1.617.258.9741
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/LCS Room NE43-355, 200 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA

Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 16:01:46 UTC