RE: WCAG2.0 Draft (A Question)

Jeff, good question about "sensed" versus "easily comprehended."

All the checkpoints under guideline 1 are (or should be) aimed at making
it possible for users to actually *perceive* content-- that is, to be
aware that it exists.  It's a much lower level of abstraction than
understanding (which the checkpoints in Guideline 3 address).  The issue
of whether I understand a given resource is moot if I don't even know
it's there.

So the notion that content can be "sensed" isn't as fuzzy as it might
sound: in fact, sensing/perceiving is much more readily testable than
"understanding," which is as fuzzy and vast as the sky.  And as
important, of course.

Hope this helps!
John


"Good design is accessible design." 
Please note our new name and URL!
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/


 



-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Deering [mailto:gdeering@acslink.net.au] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 1:06 am
To: WAI GL
Subject: WCAG2.0 Draft (A Question)



Hi,

Finally got a chance to go over the recent drafts.  Just a point.

1.3[CORE]

Under Definitions for Checkpoint 1.3 there is this phrase; "Presentation
is the rendering of the content and structure in a form that can be
sensed by the user."

What is meant by "sensed"?  It's wording that is rather foreign to me.
It's kind of "touchy feely".  I'm thinking "easily comprehended" rather
than sensed.

Yours truly,
Geoff Deering

Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2003 09:16:01 UTC