- From: Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo <emmanuelle@teleline.es>
- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:47:12 +0100
- To: "Jo Miller" <jm@bendingline.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I agree with Jo in that we should discuss what guidelines they are applicable to any document and, therefore, they can be integrated in the WCAG. A common practice, in the publications that assist to the necessities of people with psychic deficiencies, is the one that can it turns in the document in format pdf: http://www.disabilityeuropeancongress.org/english/publications/imagen-public ations/boletin2.pdf But in the Web site of the European Congress on People with Disabilities is limited to connect with the symbol "easy to read" a page with alternative content that is presented in format .doc and that it lacks illustrations, contradicting the European Guidelines for the Production of Easy-to-Read Information." Regards, Emmanuelle ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jo Miller" <jm@bendingline.com> To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 1:53 PM Subject: More useful information for 3.3 Thank you Graham. This paper is a good resource. Reading it has also crystallized my thinking somewhat and helped me pinpoint some of the things that have been bothering me in our current discussion of 3.3. What follows is a bit of thinking aloud. I hope it is not entirely useless. It comes down to this: we have not yet really clarified in 3.3 whether we are recommending multiple versions of written content -- that is, whether we want authors to provide alternative versions of content for people with learning disabilities -- or whether we're talking about a set of rules to be applied to a single version of written content. I know we've mentioned this issue before, and I think we've now reached the point when we, as a group, have to work out our thinking on it. The excellent resources that Graham and Lee and others have been collecting are of two types, broadly speaking. 1. We have, on the one hand, advice that draws on the field of web usability (and, to a certain extent, from general writing manuals) and aims to improve comprehensibility of web documents for all readers. "Break up text with appropriate subheadings to facilitate skimming." "Use structural markup to emphasize key points." "Trim the fat." And so forth. Advice in this vein could usefully apply to just about all web pages, regardless of content or audience. 2. In addition, we have advice on how to write for readers with learning disabilities. "Use the most elementary language possible (common words)." "Avoid the subjunctive tense." "Use second-person imperative." "Eschew the semicolon." "Avoid metaphor and abstraction." Depending on the content, advice of this nature might best apply to an alternative version of a web page. Given the far-reaching consequences that WCAG documents have when they are adopted or adapted as legislation, it is important that we proceed carefully and get this right. In our work on WCAG 2.0, we always circle back to a few core principles, which include: - We want, as much as possible, to leave choice in the hands of the user. We want to make it possible for users to select the presentation that fits best with their own needs, abilities, and preferences. - We want to make web content as accessible as possible to as many people as possible. - We acknowledge that web audiences are diverse in their abilities and preferences. - When the needs of different users conflict, offering multiple options is a solution. - We want to enrich web content, not impoverish it. (The extent to which the public misconstrues this aim reflects a failure of communication on our part.) We therefore need to consider the fact that, for some content, multiple versions aimed at different reading levels will be a better solution than a single, super-simplified version to be used by everyone. (I know we've considered this fact, and Lisa and I have been talking about "alternative renderings" in our recent exchanges, but we have not yet captured it clearly in our documents.) Otherwise, we risk asking authors to sacrifice the needs and preferences of their non-learning-disabled readers and, possibly, to strip important levels of meaning from their (single version of) content. Let's take one example. Here's the thing about "short, simple" words: it takes more of them to say what you're trying to say. Economy of expression is sacrificed. Precision, too. Think of the circumlocutions we're forced to use when struggling in a foreign language that we don't know well. Think of carrying heavy rolls of pennies around in your pocket because you're not allowed to use quarters or pounds. The English "Make It Simple" guide [1] is lengthy, monotonous and flat precisely because it is following its own advice. By making documents congenial for learning-disabled readers, it is possible to create a wretched -- and even difficult -- reading experience for people without learning disabilities. Not always, but sometimes. Again, it depends on the content. For some content, a single version might serve all audiences, but for other content, multiple versions might be required to meet the needs of different types of readers. I therefore think we ought to make it clear that we are not trying to restrict web authors by forcing them to write ALL their content in a certain way. We're not telling them to eliminate from their prose anything that a learning-disabled person might have trouble understanding (just as we are not telling designers to eliminate all graphics because some audience members cannot see pictures). Rather, we are asking them to provide alternatives for people with different needs. Furthermore, we acknowledge that the alternative may lose some of the richness and nuance of the original, just as alt-text is not really the equivalent of a photograph. When devising recommendations for alternative versions of content, then, we have more latitude. We would be able to say, for example, "avoid metaphor, complexity, and uncommon words in your alternative version." This is very different from saying "avoid metaphor, complexity and uncommon words in all your versions." I suggest that at upcoming meetings, we discuss which criteria should apply to all web pages and which should apply to alternative versions of content. Jo [1] http://www.inclusion-europe.org/selfadvocacy/eetr_guidelines.htm
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2002 11:54:04 UTC