Re: my action item



I find the table somewhat unwieldy with only three technologies. It will only
get worse as we add more columns. If I am working in HTML and CSS, I am only
interested in those two columns. But because the checkpoint column and the
XML/XSL columns take up half the width of the window, I am forced to read
screens and screens of narrow columns of information. Cognitively, it is hard
for me to keep focused with this presentation.

In the IBM Accessibility Guidelines (,
we have only the checkpoints in a table. Each checkpoint has a link to a page
with the techniques for that checkpoint. In IBM, we have found that the best
approach is to have a separate checklist for each technology. For example, we
could have added techniques for developing accessible Lotus Notes applications
to the software checklist. But, when someone is creating a form in Lotus Notes,
they just want to know what they have to do to make that form accessible. They
don't really care about the original principle from which the techniques were
derived. So rather than make them wade through checkpoints that don't apply and
techniques for a technology they are not currently using, we chose to develop
separate checklists for Lotus Notes developers.


>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: "Lisa Seeman" <>
> To: "WAI \(E-mail\)" <>
> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 10:12:07 +0200
> Message-ID: <000a01c02925$4ec47300$>
> Subject: my action item
> I put up  a draft of the table format up at
> It is a draft, just to see if we
> think techniques are clearer in a table format.
> Before anyone gets upset, I have not even tried edit (typos? me?) ....This
> is just to see if we like the general format.
> I have only done the first three checkpoints.
> Things to note:
> The first checkpoint has (I think) the most techniques, so it makes it the
> hardest to present in this form.
> I left out examples, The table was just getting too big. We could link them
> in, or just add them (as with the original techniques document).
> I do not know if this type of presentation is an improvement -
> Your comments......
> L

Received on Thursday, 28 September 2000 12:36:40 UTC