- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 07:45:45 -0400
- To: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, "WAI Guidelines WG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Chas, As it is, we have four guidelines 1) accessibility, 2) navigability, 3)comprehensibility, and 4) technology You suggest moving the technology checkpoints under which? Why not simplify further ---- two guidelines: 1) insure that all content is accessible and comprehensible and 2) insure that users can navigate the page/site. There will be too many cross links between accessible and comprehensible, and they both have a common goals -- for the user to be able to use the content. Anne At 04:30 AM 8/20/01 -0700, Charles F. Munat wrote: > From a previous post: > >"If it were up to me, I would break out [navigability] and >[comprehensibility] and make three guidelines: WCAG, WCNG, WCCG, for >Accessibility, Navigability, and Comprehensibility respectively. If we did >this, I expect that WCAG would be slightly smaller, WCNG would be of >moderate size, and WCCG would be as large or larger than the current >guidelines." > >I continue: > >I don't expect to convince many, but I'm going to state this for the record. >The best we're going to do on the WCAG if we try to include navigability and >comprehension in with accessibility (strict sense meaning ability to "get >to" the data) is half-assed. More likely quarter-assed. It's just too much >for one document. > >IF (big IF) we split the documents: > >1. We could have the WCAG 2.0 ready to go in a week (and with almost NO >quarrelling over the details -- this stuff is mostly old hat). > >2. The Web Content Navigability Guidelines could be done fairly quickly, I'd >imagine. A few months? > >3. The Web Content Comprehensibility Guidelines would take a while. At least >a year, I'd think. BUT (big BUT): We could issue a temporary set containing >the comprehensibility checkpoints currently in WCAG 2.0 (including the >dreaded 3.3 and 3.4). They would be without official status (whatever that's >worth) but would be enough to get people thinking about it. We could also >promote them and try to get people thinking more about comprehensibility. > >THINK OF THE BENEFITS: > >1. We get access out of the way. This would refocus our goal. No longer >would there be the tug of war between access advocates and comprehensibility >advocates. > >2. A new, small, fast-working group could be formed to handle the >navigability guidelines. Without the burden of having to figure out >comprehensibility (a much more difficult proposition) or simple access, >these guidelines could be produced quickly. > >3. COMPREHENSIBILITY IS NO LONGER ACCESSIBILITY'S UGLY HALF-SISTER, VYING >FOR ATTENTION. This group could morph into the Comprehensibility WG, minus >those people who are more interested in access or navigation. The group >would be focused on ONE goal. Better still, we could PROMOTE this idea more >effectively because comprehensibility is more *comprehensible* when were not >trying to call it accessibility. Finally, we could go out and actively seek >experts on comprehension (and cognitive disabilities) to join the experts >already in this group, bringing in fresh blood and new ideas and >rejuvenating the group. Who knows, maybe without the drag of constant access >vs. comprehensibility wars, the WCCG could be completed in record time. > >The only detriments I see are these: > >1. It takes longer to get the comprehensibility guidelines out. As I see it, >this delay would be more than compensated for by the MUCH clearer nature of >the WCCG guidelines. And, when users looked to the WCCG, there would be no >doubt about what they were trying to accomplish (e.g., a person who just >wants to ensure access to users with visual disabilities will not look >there). Another mitigating factor would be the temporary stop-gap measure of >an "unofficial" release of "methods to aid comprehensibility while waiting >for the release of the WCCG 2.0." > >2. Without the "accessibility" angle, comprehensibility might lose some >leverage. Solution: Define accessibility twice (as we already have, I >think). GENERAL accessibility includes SPECIFIC accessibility, navigability, >and comprehensibility. PUT THIS IN THE INTRODUCTION TO ALL THREE SETS OF >GUIDELINES, thus: > >"There are three parts to ensuring an accessible Web site. First, users must >be able to access the site. Second, they must be able to navigate the site, >to find the data they're looking for. Finally, they must be able to >comprehend -- to understand -- the data once they've found it. The W3C >provides three sets of guidelines related to Web site accessibility: the Web >Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), the Web Content Navigability >Guidelines (WCNG), and the Web Content Comprehensibility Guidelines (WCCG). >All three sets of guidelines are necessary to ensure accessibility on the >Web." > >This gets us out of the "usability" trap. It clarifies (and actually >simplifies) the guidelines. It refocuses the guidelines by allowing each set >to concentrate on one area. > >There could be overlap. A checkpoint that affected access and navigability, >for example, could appear in both. The non-normative data could explain how >it affected access in the WCAG version and how it affected navigability in >the WCNG version. > >Another option is to reorganize the current guidelines into access, >navigability, and comprehensibility sections, but this is much less >desirable. I envision a significant expansion of the comprehensibility (and, >to a lesser extent, the navigability) portion. This is going to take some >time. If we keep them in one document, we will delay the access portion by >quite some time. Why? Let's get it out of the way. Then let's create a set >of comprehensibility guidelines that will blow the lid off this subject and >will focus everyone's attention on the need to make sites comprehensible to >everyone. (Note to Anne: this puts the needs of people with cognitive >disabilities front and center.) > >I ask everyone in this group to think seriously about this idea. WE CAN DO >THIS. IT IS NOT TOO LATE. WCAG 2.0, stripped of nav and comp can sail >through to recommendation status and we can give the remaining two aspects >of accessibility the attention they truly deserve. > >Since the current draft is scheduled to go public in the next 48 hours, if >you think that this is worth at least a telecon, please SPEAK NOW. > >Chas. Munat Anne Pemberton apembert@erols.com http://www.erols.com/stevepem http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Monday, 20 August 2001 07:53:09 UTC