- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 19:22:26 -0700
- To: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>, "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
JW:: "What we now need is an explanation, expressed in more formal language,
that can be included in the guidelines and which will be as precise as
possible."
WL: I think one of the problems we have is that when we write for ourselves
formality and precision are called for; when we write for people who have
trouble understanding the guidelines formality and precision are equated
with opacity and inaccessibility (in the "intellectual" sense).
Although we and more particularly EO threaten to make the materials more
"clear and simple" it is still a pretty speech with no music if you take my
meaning.
Of course there is a place for pedantry and the language usually found in
academia, but there's some question if this is that place. The guidelines
proper, no argument. They are necessary (and probably necessarily in this
form) but they clearly aren't sufficient. Our intended audience is not other
members of our choir but people who want to comply, conform, etc. but when
they try to find out how are faced with the language of professors.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Wednesday, 6 September 2000 22:21:27 UTC