Re: an action item :)

I think Emmanuelle has made a point of other advantages of following the
guidelines. That in following them the site will be useable and helpful for
"the noisy or
not well illuminated atmospheres".


This, I think, is just usability and not about making content inaccessible.
Now our guidelines will help these situations, but they are not (in my
opinion) what they were for. Therefore I prefer to not include these
usability but not accessibility points. I think that is belongs with EO, as
another good reason for implementing the guidelines.

I think making people think that these guideline include things to help
people in a noisy room, will reduce their importance and legitimize a "take
it or leave it"  attitude.

I was under the impression, that we put some responsibility on the end user.
Turning on the lighting is probably a good minimum requirement.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo" <emmanuelle@teleline.es>
To: <cyns@opendesign.com>; <lseeman@globalformats.com>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: an action item :)


> Hi all,
>
> Maybe be good idea that in the introduction of the guidelines the
meticulous
> explanations are eliminated on the types of deficiencies that cover,
> provided another document that explains clearly what a type of users exist
> and in what circumstances they have been kept in mind when editing the
> rules.
>
> Anyway, in the writing proposed by Lisa she lacks to mention the external
> conditions. I believe that we can classify to all the users and their
> personal circumstances in three factors to keep in mind: Personal factors
> (that cover the disability, the age and the illiteracy), Technological
> Factors (that cover the necessity to use assistive technology and all the
> technologies that can be used) and External Factors (that cover the noisy
or
> not well illuminated atmospheres and any other obstacle unaware to the
> person).
>
> Regards,
> Emmanuelle
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <cyns@opendesign.com>
> To: <lseeman@globalformats.com>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 2:18 AM
> Subject: RE: an action item :)
>
>
> > Short, sweet, and to the point.  I like it.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lisa Seeman [mailto:lseeman@globalformats.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 7:11 AM
> > To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> > Subject: an action item :)
> >
> >
> > In the ftf one of my action items was to write a replacement for the
list
> > of impairments catered for in the introduction.
> >
> > The idea is to give people a sense of context about who and what the
> > guidelines are for, some awareness of what user groups and devices
exist,
> > without opening a Pandora's box of classifying disabilities (which I
> > personally felt could get offensive)
> >
> > I felt that it important to get a proposal on the table, so that we can
> > agree if this is the kind of thing we want in principal, and then we
> > can  get pedantic about semantics and my grammar.
> >
> > So in your comments, please remember to say if this is
> >   the kind of thing that you want content wise
> >   and the kind of style that we want
> >
> > It is a bit plagiarized from our home site, but we do not  mind.
> >
> > <this is it>
> > Understanding the guidelines involves remembering that not all devices
are
> > the same, (e.g. keypads, brail readers )  not all systems are the same,
> > (e.g. voice browsers, screen magnifiers)  and not all  people are the
> same.
> > (From the visually impaired, low motor coordination, to the learning
> > disabled, what make you unique?) In implementing the guidelines one must
> > attempt to cater for the maximum number of people in the maximum number
of
> > scenarios. This can be achieved though a single accessible rendering or
> > multiple accessible renderings that are optimized for different
> situations.
> > </this is it>
> >
>
>

Received on Monday, 16 July 2001 02:57:01 UTC