2nd in Series - Problems

Problems

1.  Critical thought needs to be given to each of the guidelines to determine:
	a.  if it is still relevant
	b.  if it is doable and/or necessary for authors that are retrofitting
large numbers of pages
	c.  if we are asking authors to solve a problem that should be handled by
ATs or UAs
we have made an initial pass through the guidelines called, "deconstructing
the guidelines."  you can see what we've done at
http://trace.ie.wisc.edu/wai/analysis/

2.  Do we want to continue to recommend or require changes that place
burden on authors when it is an AT or UA problem, assuming ATs or UAs will
solve the problem in the future?  If we continue to include guidelines that
are particular to a single point in time or for a particular browser/AT
combination, then the guidelines are not timeless and will require frequent
updating (with each new release of a new ua/at).  In other words, this
version might already be antiquated by the time it has passed through the
whole w3c process.

3.  How do we determine when something is antiquated?  or What is our
lowest common denominator?  We have started collecting data on what screen
reader/browser combinations are most widely used.  By monitoring this data
we should be able to determine general trends of usage and when we can drop
certain guidelines (assuming we want to maintain fixes authors can provide
for today's (6/5/1998) browsers and ATs).

4.  How do we present the guidelines so that authors are able to easily
select those that apply to them?  

5.  By including strategies in the guidelines are we limiting what authors
will try to do?  Are we limiting creativity for finding more accessible
solutions?  Are these the only ways people can satisfy the guidelines?  Do
we need to separate the strategies from the guidelines?

Received on Tuesday, 9 June 1998 10:40:55 UTC