RE: Agenda

I think it will have an impact on conformance more than the guidelines themselves.  (IMHO) we need to give authors the ability to say "I did this on purpose, and here's why I think I had to".

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] 
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 9:40 PM
To: GLWAI Guidelines WG (GL - WAI Guidelines WG)
Subject: RE: Agenda


Thanks Cynthia,

You saved me a call for specifics on this.

Do you (or anyone) see any specific impact on our guidelines?

Is there a principle we should consider for consensus?

Gregg


-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Human Factors
Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis.
Director - Trace R & D Center
Gv@trace.wisc.edu <mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848 
For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@trace.wisc.edu <mailto:listproc@trace.wisc.edu>


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Cynthia Shelly
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 7:28 PM
To: Web Content Guidelines
Subject: RE: Agenda

On the Author and user needs conflict issue...

When we originally discussed it, the example was distracting advertising.  The author is intentionally changing the user's focus from what the user considers to be the primary content (the news article) to what the author considers to be the primary content (the ad).  From the author's viewpoint, he has made his primary content (the ad) *MORE* accessible with by adding dancing hamsters (or whatever).

This is a real need for the author.  If he is not successful at this, he won't get as many advertisers, or his advertisers won't pay as much, and he'll go out of business, taking his secondary content (the news
article) with him.

The user probably won't see it this way, and will find that he has been distracted from the primary content (the news article) by the secondary content (the ad).

Received on Monday, 8 October 2001 19:14:47 UTC