Re: Responses and Revisions -- Part 1

Eric Hansen wrote:
> On what basis could one reject a checkpoint such as the following 
> checkpoints that address a disability access issue for people with 
> cognitive or other disabilities?
> Problem: Individuals with language-related disabilities (cognitive 
> disabilities, learning disabilities, deafness, etc.) often have difficulty 
> accessing written text even when it can be perceived.
> Suggested Guideline: "If a written text is inaccessible due to the 
> difficulty of the language, provide an alternative representation or 
> version that is accessible.
> Checkpoints: 
> 1. Provide a less complex and less difficult textual version. (Priority 1)

I bet my mechanic doesn't understand a single word of what is on the
W3C site, nor does he wish to probably.

If he wants to learn the technologies of the Web, I will gladly point
him at various tutorial books, online presentation for beginners, and
the like.

On what basis would you have W3C change its web site into a Web
tutorial place ?

Not only it is not our job to do so, but we would steal business from
a lot of people whose job it is.

I reject this kind of guideline and the basis that I think we should
only deal with access to the information, not with information

Note that some of the checkpoints you mention are valid regardless of
this guidelines, because they do relate to access to the information
(e.g. if lang=fr is not used when a voice agent read my last name, you
will get a false reading), but "Provide a less complex and less
difficult textual version" is just not feasable.

To give you a direct example, I bet some readers of this list will
find your most recent posting inaccessible, semantics wise, because of
its length. Are you willing to rewrite it so that it fits on a single
page (e.g. less than 40 lines) ?

Received on Wednesday, 13 January 1999 06:57:01 UTC