- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 12:09:52 +1000 (EST)
- To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I agree with the sentiments that Chris has expressed. Research findings should be able to indicate what types of cognitive limitations exist, the kinds of communication strategies which have proved most effective in minimising their impact, etc. At this stage we do not appear to have broad agreement even in connection with such basic points. The next question would be, which solutions are best applicable universally, across the web as a whole, and ought therefore to be included in the guidelines. We already have one such proposal, namely the priority 1 checkpoint which demands that language be kept as clear and straightforward as possible, and a priority 3 suggestion that graphical supplements are a suitable aid to comprehension where applicable and appropriate. There have also been suggestions that the requirement for clear and consistent navigation and orientation mechanisms are of significant cognitive value. The question which emerges is whether there are any further, or more specific requirements that should be introduced. Several strategies have been put forward in this discussion, but as I have already remarked, there is by no means agreement on which are the most effective; and this is the area in which I think research-based expertise can contribute. Indeed, Gregg has already shown this to be the case in his insightful contributions to this discussion during a number of teleconferences.
Received on Monday, 2 August 1999 22:09:58 UTC