- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 17:18:16 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- cc: "'GLWAI Guidelines WG (GL - WAI Guidelines WG)'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I would add D to requirements for documents. Something like the existing conformance claim stuff that says you have to claim conformance in correct form to have it, except more detailed statements about particular requirements. I think it is necessary to do more than just document that people have been excluded from a site to make it accessible, but even that is a valuable improvement, and combined with removing other barriers can be really helpful. The EARL work being done in the ERT group provides a neat technique for this. cheers Charles On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: Hi Anne I like D also, (and you certainly can change) but does it help us with our goal? -- which is to make pages more accessible. Would a page be considered accessible if it just documented its accessibility - or lack of it? Isn't accessibility a measure of usability by people with disabilities, not just a measure of documentation of usability? Having said that -- I still see utility in D. Having people document what they have done may be a very effective way of getting them to improve it. It doesn’t meet our goal of defining what makes something accessible. But it could help to make it more accessible. Soooooooo. How do we deal with this.......
Received on Monday, 30 July 2001 17:18:16 UTC