- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 08:22:27 -0700
- To: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, "WAI Guidelines WG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 4:30 AM -0700 2001/8/20, Charles F. Munat wrote: >The only detriments I see are these: > >1. It takes longer to get the comprehensibility guidelines out. >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. There's still a danger of confusion (what do I follow? which is which?) and it will create a sense that despite the intro/disclaimer, "these things" are different from "these things". Compliance might be hard to track -- once separated out, it's easy to claim compliance to WCAG but not to Comprehension especially if you can (incorrectly) justify your site as being "exempt" (and a lot people DO feel that way, in effect saying "I don't write for people who can't think right".) Those are additional potential detriments. This is not saying the idea is a bad one. --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com> Technical Developer Liaison Reef North America Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network Tel +1 949-567-7006 ________________________________________ BUSINESS IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL. ________________________________________ http://www.reef.com
Received on Monday, 20 August 2001 11:58:30 UTC