RE: WCAG2.0 Draft (A Question)

Jeff, thanks for unpacking what was "fuzzy" about the word "sensed."  I
think "perceived" would be an excellent substitution, for the reasons
you outline.

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 7:24 pm
To: John M Slatin; WAI GL
Subject: RE: WCAG2.0 Draft (A Question)


In that case I feel it should read;

"Presentation is the rendering of the content and structure in a form
that can be perceived by the user."

We are dealing with Guideline 1: Perceivable.  This would be consistent
with the guideline.  Also 1.4 states, "All characters and words in the
content can be unambiguously decoded.  I feel "perceivable" strengthens
this as it is the word that is used to define this guideline, and is
also directly appropriate in this context.

"Sensed" can refer to an intuition about the presence of something, but
still with some uncertainty (I sensed something was there, but I was
unsure).  It could mean that you sensed that content or navigation is
there, but there is no positive way to interact with the medium to
confirm this, yet at the same time you can't deny it.  It leaves a
question mark about the whole experience, it is a word, when used in
this context, conveys uncertainty.  Perceived means you did actually
have some confirming experience of a perception that the object was
there, through whichever sensory organ you wish to establish
communication with that medium.

Geoff


-----Original Message-----
From: John M Slatin [mailto:john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, 17 September 2003 11:16 PM

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

Received on Thursday, 18 September 2003 09:42:06 UTC