- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:59:59 -0400
- To: Jo Miller <jo@bendingline.com>, "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, "WAI Guidelines WG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20010817094834.00a38440@pop.erols.com>
Jo, following are some examples you may want to consider .... For example: A site with well-illustrated content will not only be usable to reading disabled adults, but may extend the use of the content to school children. For example: a site with a movie that includes an audio description in the sound track, could be listened to by someone using a cell phone, as on a long drive. For example: a site with a sound track includes a view of a text version of the sounds could be used by a deaf person, or by someone in a noisy environment. Anne At 09:07 AM 8/17/01 -0400, Jo Miller wrote: >Chas, > >Thanks for undertaking the rewrite (and so quickly!). And by the way, >thanks again to Wendy for laboring so hard even on her birthday. > >A couple of comments: > >>This document outlines design principles for creating accessible Web sites. > >Agree with the omission of "attractive," which you raised in yesterday's >telecon. So far I'm with you on omitting "usable" as well, because WCAG >2.0, while it touches on a number of sound usability principles, is not >primarily about usability, nor does it claim to cover that topic >thoroughly. As we discussed yesterday, a designer could follow all the >guidelines and still create an ugly site. She could follow all the >guidelines and still create a site that falls short in terms of usability, >for this group has not been tasked with writing a thorough treatment of >user-interface design. But someone following the guidelines will not fail >to create an accessible site--at least, that's our aim. These are just my >thoughts. I know you have a lot to say on the subject of usability and I >look forward to reading it. > >The point that attractiveness (or appealing design, or whatever you want >to call it) and accessibility are not mutually exclusive certainly >deserves to be made. And it's also true that following accessibility >principles--particularly as they've been presented in WCAG 2.0--will >almost inevitably produce dramatic improvements in a site's overall >usability. But I think you're probably right that the place to make these >points is not in the sentence that states the purpose of the Guidelines. > >I would add that when we find ourselves needing to use italics for >emphasis in a sentence, it's usually (though not always) a sign that the >sentence is weak and needs to be rewritten. I think your rewrite is stronger. > >> By making content >>accessible to a variety of devices, the content is now accessible to people >>in a variety of situations. > > >This sentence, which is from the current draft, is ungrammatical. Were we >trying to avoid using "you"? Or could we say something like "By making >content accessible to a variety of devices, you make that content >accessible to people in a variety of situations as well"? > >> For example, many bar owners enable the captions >>on the television sets in their bars because the background noise in the bar >>makes hearing the television impossible. > > >Pulling this analogy up into the paragraph preceding was a good move, I >think, but "For example" is not the right introductory phrase, because >captioned television is not an example of a web-enabled device. The >television thing was brought in as an analogy or parallel from another >area of life where accessibility measures make something more usable, >convenient, or accessible for non-disabled people. (The wheelchair-ramp >analogy is often used in this way.) Calling it an example in a paragraph >devoted to web content is therefore confusing. > >Adding an example of web accessibility just before the television analogy >might help, and in fact I think a web example may be needed to clarify >what we're talking about in the sentence about "people in a variety of >situations." (We've enumerated devices but not situations.) What do people >think about this? >-- >Jo Miller >jo@bendingline.com Anne Pemberton apembert@erols.com http://www.erols.com/stevepem http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Friday, 17 August 2001 11:18:36 UTC