- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 17:36:09 -0700
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
WC:: "I know this is going in the opposite direction of where William is pushing (to list only the principles and work from there)" WL: William doesn't want to not do techniques/examples/checkpoints or even guidelines. He just thinks that most of what needs doing with those things has been done fairly well despite all the swirling. What William wants (not that it matters much) is to work on the part that: 1) has received mostly "intro text" type treatment; 2) was one thing we spoke of doing for new guidelines - provide something more general/abstract so that it could be normative and allow the other stuff to focus on what Kynn feels is the meat of the matter. I (speaking only for myself, not for the senior citizen lobby) don't think the techniques are all that opaque and if there were a way to get to them without downloading an entire encyclopedia of disclaimers, copyright notices, etc. would probably be quite useful to the poor overstressed Web designer who just wants to find out how to make the damn government happy with the accessiblity aspect of his creation. There's even example code in there folks, and if we keep at it there will be pointers to examples of sites (or portions thereof) that exemplify the "how" of all this stuff. Much of that still needs doing and organizing and editing and testing and... but IMO we still need to have some resounding perpetual truths writ large that say what all this is *really* for. Maybe Kynn's concerns are well-placed and we are calling for a simple text site to be accessible by lots of media means. I don't read it that way. I just don't think you have to have a captioned, text-described, sound movie with everything you present. If the language states (implies?) that, it needs changing. I think that's the other side of the coin that rails agains "dumbing down" one's "cool" site so that a bunch of cripples can read it. Neither view is accurate. There's a lot to do and perhaps by Bristol time we'll have cooled out enough to have a plan for doing it. Most of it is editing what we've got. So "What William Thinks" (in his irreverent pomposity) is that one of the things we need address is what Jason quite nicely labeled "Principles". Not at the expense of "how-to"s or with the aim of upsetting our well-established guideline/checkpoint terminology, but just to generalize and abstract things nicely. I prefer brevity but if tersifying leads to obscuration, get long! -- Love. ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2000 20:39:45 UTC