- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:15:37 -0700
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 11:11 AM 10/27/00 -0700, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>..., they seem to understand it now, but I maintain much of that is a
>result of the teaching techniques developed to compensate for the writing
>quality of WCAG 1.0 and cannot be attributed to WCAG 1.0 itself.
Did you teach them how to read? Or did you teach them what the stuff meant?
What in the world does "writing quality" mean?
KB:: "I have talked with numerous people who have found WCAG 1.0 to be very
hard to understand."
WL: I wonder if anybody found it easy to understand. Did anyone find it
hard to understand after they took your course? Did you think ahead of time
that it was going to be hard to understand? Did you find it hard to
understand while it was being written? If it's hard to write isn't it to be
expected that it will be hard to understand? How many of the complaints
were based on the surroundings of the checkpoints/guidelines? Is there a
before/after example of what happened to someone (taking your course) that
made her go to "now I get it" from "AIIIIIEEE" and anything that could be
done to include that in the writing? What were the characteristics of the
document that were overcomeable by training (other than simply a different,
or other) in what it meant? Are you sure (or can you be) it was the writing
and not the content of the writing that maade it hard to understand?
What do you recommend?
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Friday, 27 October 2000 15:16:14 UTC