Re: Comments on gl Abstract

hello,


>One concern: the early part of the abstract is so brief it may be
>difficult to understand, and may frustrate or scare novice readers from
>wanting to read further.
>
any suggestions?  what ideas in particular need to be expanded?

>Section A:
>
>#1, Current >>>>>>>>
>   1.Ensure that all the information on the page may be perceived
>entirely visually or entirely through auditory means, or that all
>information is also represented textually.
><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>   Makes it sound ok if a page can be perceived ONLY visually (and not
>audibly), or ONLY audibly (and not visually), and that textual
>alternatives are only needed if the visual and audio are mixed one one
>page.
>
>Possible alternate wording:
>    "Ensure that all information on the page is either represented
>textually, or that users can perceive the information entirely through
>visual means and entirely through auditory means. For instance, provide
>either textual or audio descriptions of photographs to facilitate
>non-visual browsing."
>
>Or if that's not what was meant, alternative two [caps indicate changed
>language]:
>    "Ensure that all the information on the page may be perceived
>entirely visually or entirely through auditory means, AND that all
>information is also represented textually."
>
we changed both of them to ANDs.


>[I'm not sure what an audio alternative to a photo does for deaf-blind
>individuals, for whom text is still an alternative.]
>[Is it worth explaining that bitmaps of text are not textual information
>in point #1? You explain what ‘content’ etc are in #3.]
>
we have included the following definition of "screen reader" in the
appendix, and will link to it from throughout the guidelines:
Screen reader
A software program that reads the contents of the screen aloud to a user. 
    Used primarily by individuals who are blind, screen readers can only read 
    text that is printed, not painted, to the screen.

>
>#3, Current >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>   3.Always separate the content on your site (what you say), and the
>way you choose to structure that content (how you organize it), from the
>way the content and structure are presented (how you want people to
>"see" it).
><<<<<<<<<<<<
>    I’m having trouble understanding what that means.
>
>Does it mean:
>
>    “Use HTML4.0 elements and stylesheets for their intended purposes.
>For instance, giving text the attribute <BIG> or using a header
>attribute like <H1> may both increase the visual size of text on the
>screen. But <H1> should be used to indicate the start of a new document
>section (not just to display larger text), and <BIG> should only be used
>to display bigger text (not to indicate the start of a new section).
>Following the standards will ensure that your content, information
>structure, and presentation directives (what you say, how you organize
>it, and how you want it to appear) can all transform gracefully when
>accessed with alternative browsing methods.”
>
yes, this is exactly what it means.


>
>#2, Current >>>>>>>>
>    2.Ensure that pages will be operable on various types of hardware
>including devices without mice, with small, low resolution, or black and
>white screens, with only voice or text output, without screens, etc.
><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>    This sounds impossibly complicated to people who have no experience
>with alternative access methods. I spent months trying to convince
>people via phone and email that these ‘impossible’ things can be done,
>and they were only convinced when the saw a screen-reader and tried it
>out.
>
>May I suggest moving #2 down to #3, and reword to something like:
>    “Ensure that pages allow the flexibility to be operable on various
>types of hardware including devices without mice, with small, low
>resolution, or black and white screens, with only voice or text output,
>without screens, etc. Following the principles suggested above will go a
>long way toward achieving this goal.”
>
we have moved 2 to 3, and added the phrase "Guidelines A.1 - A.12 address
these issues." after the list of 3.

thanks for your comments!
--the editors

Received on Thursday, 17 September 1998 18:41:25 UTC