- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:30:25 +1100 (EST)
- To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
It should be noted in this discussion that checkpoint 14.1, requiring the "clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site" to be used, is at a priority 1 level, reflecting the importance which the working group attributes to it. I think the suggestion to require every web page to include graphics or other non-textual components is deeply flawed, for although there are many circumstances in which this would aid comprehension, there are others in which it would not do so. The guidelines therefore suggest that graphics be used where these would assist in the comprehension of the material. There are two areas where I think we can make advances, either in the guidelines themselves or in the techniques document: 1. The provision of more detailed advice as to what constitutes the clear and simple language and how to judge appropriateness (this is very difficult to do, as evinced by the debate surrounding readability measures last year in which it was generally agreed that these were unhelpful in the present context). 2. The development of more specific advice as to what kinds of non-textual material are most valuable in improving comprehension and the contexts in which they should be employed. It should however be remembered that the guidelines are intended to be applicable to all web sites; hence the requirements (at the three priority levels recognised in the document) have to be framed in such a way that they can be satisfied irrespective of the subject matter with which the web content is concerned, ranging from a site intended for primary school children to a site devoted to particle physics (incidentally, the web originated in a particle physics laboratory).
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2000 18:30:50 UTC