Re: A proposal for changing the guidelines

aloha, scott!

i've looked at your demos, and i've read your posts -- what i'm waiting to 
read are:

1) concrete problem statements
2) concrete checkpoint proposals
3) concrete techniques

in the absence of the above, this conversation will go nowhere, but around 
and around, as it has for the past few months...

please -- anyone who has suggested that there are topics that the GL 
working group has missed or who has a plan for a note addressing something 
they believe WCAG does not currently (or adequately) address, please post 
CONCRETE SUGGESTIONS to this list, so that they can be discussed on-list 
and at CSUN

there's been enough bickering and rhetoric posted to this list, and i admit 
my own past complicity in prolonging the cycle...  but enough is enough -- 
let's get back to our mission: improving the guidelines and techniques 
documents through the discussion of concrete and specific examples, 
checkpoints, and techniques,

         gregory.

At 12:29 PM 3/13/00 -0800, you wrote:
>Hi, Gregory
>
>Look at my demo for a start.  What about it do blind users like?
>Also, look at my example of linking error messages on web pages.
>
>Scott
>
> > aloha, scott!
> >
> > in a reply to charles, you wrote, quote:
> > Your statement about a "user impact matrix" is kind of interesting.Your
> > argument can also be applied to the guidelines.  Don't the guidelines
> > themselves make certain generalizations about particular groups.  For
> > example, I can point out a number of areas of access problems that the
> > guidelines don't address that cause trouble for users. These areas are not
> > generally known because there has been very little research based on
> > observation on what kinds of problems blind users can run into.  By
> > ignoring the problems, the guidelines are assuming they are not issues 
> that
> > affect users very much.
> > unquote
> >
> > if you are aware of any issues which WCAG does not address, you should 
> post
> > them to this list, so that they can be officially added to the issues 
> list...
> >
> > accessibility is in the eye, ear, and/or fingertip (to name but a few
> > facilities) of the beholder -- and if the guidelines working group isn't
> > aware of entire classes of access problems, we need to be alerted, and the
> > best way to do so would be to post a problem statement and proposed
> > checkpoint (and techniques) to cover each issue that we've missed...
> >
> > that, to a great extent, is how the WAI guidelines are created...  they're
> > not created in ivory tower isolation, but have consistently, and
> > persistently, sought the input of the widest possible audience, but there
> > are, inevitably, many from whom we were unable to hear, because they, by
> > virtue of being offline, are unable to hear us...
> >
> > so, if you can provide us with specific cases, scenarios, and solutions,
> > please do so, and we will fill as many holes as possible,
> >          gregory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
ABSURDITY, n.  A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with
one's own opinion.       -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devils' Dictionary_
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory J. Rosmaita      <unagi69@concentric.net>
Camera Obscura           <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html>
VICUG NYC                <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/>
Read 'Em & Speak         <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/books/>
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Tuesday, 14 March 2000 18:43:25 UTC