- From: <nir.dagan@econ.upf.es>
- Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 15:35:51 +0100
- TO: asgilman@access.digex.net
- CC: ehansen@ets.org, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
There is a fine line in where accessibility stops and general usability starts. Also as Jason said, many issues depend on the nature of the content of the website in question. The guidelines already discuss the scanability of links. Although this is a general usability issue as also sighted users often scan pages for links, it may be considered an accessibility issue as non-sighted users have a longer delay in stoping scanning and reading the sorrounding text. To a certain extent one may make a similar claim about headings. At the same time, I submit that the guidelines 1. should be as short as possible, in order to encourage authors to use them. 2. restrict attention to objectively measurable things to the possible extent, to assist machine "evaluation" 3. Avoid contoversial recommendations, concerning language or writing style. There is a section "good website practices" and there are informative references. Anything that has to do whether you use "passive voice" or not, or whether conclusions should be at the begining of a paragraph, may be addressed by styleguides or articles referrred to from the "good website practices" section. Don't get me wrong here. I think that most of these recommendations are good. They just don't belong in a W3C recommendation. The W3C shouldn't tell people what to write, it should tell them how to use technology in a way that people will be able to read what one writes. Since the WAI guidelines are not exactly "a specification" one needs to be extra careful in what goes in, and not get carried away with educating the potential readers. Regards, Nir Dagan http://www.nirdagan.com
Received on Sunday, 25 October 1998 09:36:09 UTC