Comments/questions on Latest Proposed Minimum Def

The following was proposed.

"Any checkpoint which, if not followed, results in a
certain group of users' being _unable_ (with the aid
of any applicable client-side software and assistive
technologies) to read, understand, interact with or
navigate content would qualify for inclusion in the
minimum set."

I like it but as I look at it closely a couple thoughts or questions
come to mind.

Isn't a page always "navigable" if it is "interact-able"?    Most all
the navigation items are to make it easier to navigate.  To make it
faster than just walking from top to bottom.   If so then we should
remove it from the definition (or just end up with an empty set - which
is fine).   Does someone have an example?   Maybe non-html?


The second topic is "understand".
- There are tons of websites out there that many cannot understand
unless you have training.    Would that mean we would include a
requirement that web authors provide training on the topics necessary to
use their sites?
- How about those that can't be understood unless translated into much
simpler language.  Does that mean that the minimum set would include a
recommendation that all sites be translated into all levels of
complexity?

Or are we going to cross the above criteria with a "reasonable to
implement" guideline?  Perhaps that is the answer. Since there are
unreasonable things to require for vision and hearing too.


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>

Received on Sunday, 11 November 2001 22:02:50 UTC