Responses and Revisions -- Part 2

***1. In response to this comment by Eric Hansen: 

> PART 2: PROPOSED REVISIONS FOR THE PAGL DOCUMENT
> 
> Notes are found between square brackets and headed by the word "NOTE". 
The 
> notes are my (Eric Hansen's) side comments and are not for inclusion in 
the 
> PAGL document.

Daniel Dardailler wrote:

"Could you indicate which version you used as your starting point, and
whether or not all your changes are indicated with a following [NOTE]
comment. Without that information, it's hard to tell what is your
contribution."

Eric Hansen's current response:

It is all my contribution. I just wrote it on the basis of the the way I 
see the guideline document and its purpose.

Because it was written essentially from scratch you would probably not find 
any version of the guidelines that parallels what I have provided. In fact, 
any parallels would be due either to coincidence or simply to my having 
absorbed material from the guidelines text from having read it a number of 
times.

Text within the brackets, [NOTE. etc., etc.] is not intended for inclusion 
in the guidelines document. 

By the way, I think that all my references to specific material in the 
document should be correct for the 4 January 1999 version of the 
guidelines.

***2. In response to this comment by Eric Hansen:

> 2.A. PROPOSED INTRODUCTORY PORTION OF GUIDELINES DOCUMENT
> 
> Purpose
> 
> The Page Authoring guidelines document is designed to help Web authors 
> improve the accessibility of Web sites for people with disabilities. The 
> document also indicates how following the guidelines can also make Web 
> sites more accessible and usable to individuals without disabilities.

Daniel Dardailler wrote:

"I still strongly feel that we should sell these guidelines as being
primarily for solving the issue of Device Independence wrt access
of Web Content (output and input)."

Eric Hansen's current comment:

I think that the guidelines should be sold on the way they will help people 
access information:  e.g., access for PEOPLE with disabilities, improved 
access and usability for USERS of diverse Web browsers (handheld, mobile), 
etc. Personally, I prefer not to dilute the emphasis on people with 
disabilities.

***3. In response to this comment by Eric Hansen:

> Benefits
> 
> Adhering to the guidelines in this document:
> 
> * Will ensure a basic level of accessibility for people with 
disabilities. 
> For many individuals with disabilities, following these guidelines will 
> have a profound positive influence on their access to Web-based 
> information.
> 
> * Will help increase usability and accessibility by both nondisabled and 
> disabled individuals who are using a mobile and voice technologies or who 
> are operating in constrained environments (noise-free, nonvisual). 
> 
> * Is expected to promote comprehension, appreciation, and hence, overall 
> effectiveness of Web content.

Daniel Dardailler wrote:

"I'd put point 2 first and add "(e.g. better search engine results) in 
point 3."

Eric Hansen's current comment:

Again, I like emphasizing people with disabilities and I think that listing 
people with disabilities reflects the actual underlying nature of the 
document. For example, isn't it true, as I have assumed in my explanation 
of assumptions (Part 2), that the impact ratings that influence the 
priority (imperative) ratings are ONLY the ones that relate to disability 
groups? How could it be otherwise? The list of "device-based" groups (e.g., 
"users of handheld devices", "users of telephone-based browsers") is, in 
principle, infinite. And perhaps many of the devices that would be affected 
have not even been invented yet. That means it is hard to actually generate 
impact ratings for those device-based groups. One just does not really know 
to what extent all those device-based groups would be affected by violation 
of a single checkpoint. On the other hand, there is only a finite number of 
major disability groups that could have been considered in generating 
impact ratings. These groups can and should be named. Generating impact 
ratings (at least for the groups most impacted) by violation of each 
checkpoint is doable. To summarize, I think that accessibility for people 
with disabilities properly underlies the priority (imperative) ratings, so 
that it makes sense to list them first.

I like your idea of emphasizing the guidelines' potential for improving 
searching and finding (via engines and other means). I think that I might 
suggest inserting the following point after the 2nd point:

"* Will improve users' ability to quickly find information, particularly 
information about multimedia and interactive objects."

That point exploits the guidelines' emphasis on alternative content, etc.
=============================
Eric G. Hansen, Ph.D.
Development Scientist
Educational Testing Service
ETS 12-R
Rosedale Road
Princeton, NJ 08541
(W) 609-734-5615
(Fax) 609-734-1090
E-mail: ehansen@ets.org

Received on Wednesday, 13 January 1999 12:49:25 UTC