- From: Jonathan Chetwynd <jay@peepo.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 07:39:42 +0100
- To: w3c <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <378447AE.CE0BD798@peepo.com>
These are notes in brief: A split the guidelines into those meeting people's needs and those concerned with UI. B provide working examples C mention cultural issues D encourage automated navigation (storytelling) E encourage use of appropriate images F dilectics G priamble ---- A split the guidelines into those meeting people's needs and those concerned with UI. The guidelines are split between meeting the different needs of users and the different abilities of their computer interfaces (UIs) people 1,2,4,7,12,13,14 machines 2,3,5,6,8,9,10,11 That is my first impression, and at this stage of our understanding that is a mess. It is crucial that people can find the information they require. Just as the techniques have been separated, peoples needs and machine abilities must be separated. This will lead to some duplication, people must come first. ------ B provide working examples It is important that the guidelines are a good example of what they intend Guideline 3 has two useful examples ie (using a table for layout or a header to change the font size) (e.g., constructing what looks like a table of data with an HTML PRE element) However they are textual rather than graphical.. > < ^ are excellent tools for navigation once learnt. However, it is not clear how one navigates without a scroll bar, though javascript could provide screensize and v could provide next page, for those with javascript. Naturally this means there should be bad examples. Why not have an example of an irritating and meaningless flickering animation, with a disable button. There is frequent mention of the need to cater for cognitive disablity, but no link to the example guideline site. ----- C mention cultural issues Where is the mention of cultural artifact. Most of our students live in flats, but house/home is still gingerbread style. Chopsticks/KFS... white weddings/funerals... Some of these concerns are cross-media. ----- D encourage automated navigation (storytelling) gl 7. >People with physical disabilities might not be able to move quickly or accurately enough to interact with moving objects. In fact people with physical+cognitive disabilities need more specific motivation. Moving objects are better able to provide a context. Scroll bars are a complete barrier to many. 7.1,7.2 excellent Perhaps mention should be made of the need to provide programmatic movement through a site with a speed control. (also covers 7.3, 7.4, 7.5) gl 10. automated navigation is essential for some users see 7 ----- E encourage use of appropriate images gl 1 >Provide equivalent alternatives to auditory and visual content. The porisma or corollary is that we MUST provide visual content that is equivalent, and this is very much more time consuming and difficult. >Providing non-text equivalents (e.g., pictures, videos, and pre-recorded audio) of text is also beneficial to some users, especially nonreaders or people who have difficulty reading. This rather brief in comparison and does not discuss the inherent difficulties, it is certainly not rated a 'must'. 14.2 >Supplement text with graphic or auditory presentations where they will facilitate comprehension of the page. why is this not priority 1? This is hardly encouraging, a picture tells a thousand words, in many cases pictures are a huge benefit. Non-readers, children... For the sighted vision is a large part of their native (pre-educational) understanding. People with cognitive disability make extensive use of this ability, in order to navigate the real world. Making use of this ability offers an opportunity to enhance education. This area is extremely complex and needs enormous expansion. ----- F dilectics The Guidelines seem to occasionally and regularly miss out on dilectical arguments, that is if a group needs, or has a problem with one feature, it is almost certain that another group will need that feature disabled or actioned. (I use porisma in a similar sense to corollary, but where the solution is either irrational, or difficult to attain.) ---- G priamble The following notes concern the priamble, they are not guideline notes but 'chapter' notes. 1.0 >They may have difficulty reading or comprehending text. Excellent, but having noted a disability, it is important to meet its needs. 2.1... >Provide text (including text equivalents). Text can be rendered in ways that are available to almost all browsing devices and accessible to almost all users. This plainly does not help those with cognitive difficulties why is the opposite not mentioned ie providing pictures and sounds? 4. >Each checkpoint has a priority level assigned by the Working Group based on the checkpoint's impact on accessibility. Says who, no but seriously this needs to be expanded. ie are we just identifying what is possible?
Received on Thursday, 8 July 1999 02:50:53 UTC