- From: eric hansen <ehansen@ets.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:14:00 -0500 (EST)
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
I would like to respond to the comments of Nir Dagan and Jason White (see their comments below), who have indicated that considerations of language readability and privacy should be outside the scope of the page authoring guidelines document. 1. Declaring the Scope of the Document If the guidelines will not address issues such as language readability or privacy, then perhaps the document should declare so. Following is an example of what could be included in the guidelines: "There are other considerations not addressed in this document which may significantly influence the usability and accessibility of the Web pages. For example, the language may be inaccessible because of difficult or unfamiliar vocabulary and syntax, poor organization, etc. This issue of language readability is particularly important for individuals who are deaf, dyslexic, or nonnative speakers of the language. Another example is the failure to inform users about how personal information will be used. A user with a disability may be unwilling to access Web-based scholarship or employment services because of concern about whether information about his disability will be shared with schools or potential employers. And of course, certain content may be offensive to some audiences for a variety of reasons. Such considerations may be just as influential upon usability or accessibility of a Web page as those addressed by the guidelines, but are beyond the scope of this document." 2. Uncharted Territory Regarding Jason White's comment ("The guidelines should not attempt to prescribe appropriate writing practices but should be strictly limited to those aspects of structure and markup which affect the compatibility of the document with different input/output scenarios."), the guidelines have already "strayed" into the area of writing practices. Consider, for example, guideline B.4.2. ("Avoid phrases that are not meaningful on their own such as "click here.""). This guideline provides guidance in writing, i.e., to ensure phrases that will properly convey meaning. This is further backed up by the corresponding Technique (B.4.2 [Priority 2]: Therefore, it is important that link text make[s] sense when read without surrounding text. For example, authors should not use "click here" as link text several times on the same pageț"). There are also other places in the guidelines that call for "clarity" of expression, which, again, puts the guidelines into the realm of language and writing. Technique A.5.1 requires that that the material be "perceivable" but also "understandable" through "text" and "semantic clues" ("Don't use color to convey information unless the information is also clear from the markup and/or text." "[Priority 1]: Authors must ensure that text and graphics are perceivable and understandable when viewed without color. To do so, provide other semantic clues in content or markupț".) Also, guideline 1.5 calls for "Use a clear, consistent navigation structure". Thus, it seems to me that the guidelines have already gone beyond ensuring that users can perceive content; they go into the realm of ensuring that what is perceived can also to understood. This pushes the guidelines beyond issues of markup and structure and into the realms of language and writing. 3. Reasons for Reticence I can understand the reticence to get into the area of language readability. For example, to suggest that page authors need to pay attention language readability may appear to threaten one of the document's founding (and comforting) principles, i.e., that "Accessibility does not mean minimal page design, it means thoughtful page design." (This statement appears to align with principles of "universal design".) Yet at least in the field of deaf education, certain texts may be referred to as being somewhat or completely "inaccessible" because of their language readability characteristics. And the process of rendering these texts more "accessible" appears to involve simplification or minimization of some language features. For the guidelines to require ensuring readable language may place too great a burden upon authors. Yet to allow authors of public Web sites to say, in effect, "We are targeting only audiences with high reading levels," seems to fly in the face of principles of universal design. 4. Conclusion I recommend that the guidelines document either (1) include guidelines that address issues such as language readability or (2) make explicit that such things are beyond the scope of the guidelines. I think that to do otherwise would mislead some people to think that if they are following the guidelines then the page will necessarily be accessible and usable by people with disabilities. 5. Comments by Jason White and Nir Dagan From Jason White: > I altogether agree with Nir's sentiment: it is possible to write highly > accessible content, meaning that it will be displayed optimally by a range > of different software systems and output devices, which is nevertheless > poorly written, vague, incoherent, etc. The guidelines should not attempt > to prescribe appropriate writing practices but should be strictly limited > to those aspects of structure and markup which affect the compatibility of > the document with different input/output scenarios. > > Moreover, judgments of stylistic appropriateness are highly dependent upon > the subject matter of the text and its intended audience, and the > guidelines should not stray into such considerations. From Nir Dagan > I do not think that the WAI guidelines should become a general guide > to good authoring/writing/web-publishing. > > I can't see any relation to the suggestions below and accessibility. > Next tell people to spell check and grammar check their documents, and not use > use rude words. ============================= Eric G. Hansen Development Scientist Educational Testing Service ETS 12-R Rosedale Road Princeton, NJ 08541 (W) 609-734-5615 (Fax) 609-734-1090 Internet: ehansen@ets.org
Received on Monday, 26 October 1998 11:37:28 UTC