- From: Marti <marti47@MEDIAONE.NET>
- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:28:45 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>
In general I think this is a great idea. I do wonder how much influence we could really have on others documentation. This week I started my action item by reading what Adobe had to say at http://access.adobe.com and ell, - hmm I guess I better not say most of what I am thinking. Marti > I'm working on my action item from last week: what should we incorporate > from the SMIL access note into a SMIL module for the techniques document. > > The SMIL access note is very well written. I compared it to the SMIL 1.0 > spec. The spec describes accessibility all over the place. I like that > the SMIL note brings it into one place and creates a context for accessibility. > > But, what are authors really going to use? I think they will use the > tutorials that are pointed to from the SMIL page. The two that I looked at > do not mention accessibility. They don't even use the word "caption" and > leave out the system-caption attribute where they mention the other system > attributes. > > yikes. > > The authoring tools working group is working with companies to incorporate > accessibility into existing tools. The user agent working group is working > with companies to incorporate accessibility into existing user agents. > > perhaps our job is to work with documentation developers to incorporate > accessibility into existing documentation? > > look at the effort it takes, not only for us but for authors, to create our > own documentation: > 1. we have to learn about, write, test and maintain the techniques in our > own documents. > 2. we have to raise awareness that the documents exist. > 3. authors have to learn from one source what to do, then *unlearn* many of > those things when they come to our stuff. > 4. our stuff is a separate thing. it requires an author to read more than > one document. is that likely to happen? > > The Guidelines need to exist because AU and UA point to them. They > establish a good baseline that techniques, from a variety of sources, can > point to. It is a great work (that still needs some polishing). But I'm > wondering if instead of putting our effort into creating all these new > techniques modules, perhaps we would get more bang for the buck if we > worked with existing documents to incorporate accessibility. > > Then our techniques document would be lists of pointers to examples, > tutorials, and other documents whose authors we have worked with to include > accessibility. > > thoughts? > --wendy > -- > wendy a chisholm > world wide web consortium > web accessibility initiative > madison, wi usa > tel: +1 608 663 6346 > /-- >
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2000 15:32:36 UTC