- From: Andy Heath <a.k.heath@shu.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 08:53:43 +0000
- To: lisa seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
- Cc: 'Wendy A Chisholm' <wendy@w3.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Sorry to just butt in. I agree with your main point here Lisa. Maybe the components of a solution coupld encompass work outside w3 as well - for example a guideline and Meta-data on content that work together. I'm fairly new to knowing how w3 processes work but I do know that the way many other people do this stuff is to focus solutions around use-cases , which I think is a kind-of half way house between unstructured working and the completely planned road-map approach. Are there use-cases for this process somewhere ? andy a.k.heath@shu.ac.uk > Looking back at 3.3 and guidelines for designing web content for > Learning and cognitive disabilities. > > Before creating this guideline we have done a review of clear writing > guidelines across the world, but, these guidelines were not concerned > about issues like freedom of speech and adoptability. Which made it > easer for them. > > > On the other hand they did not have the advantages that technology > protocols and innovation can provide. > > I think maybe we need to take a step back and have a taskforce to > explore end to end methodologies for helping learning disabilities > combined with protocols. > > For example lexical linking could work well to allow simplification at > the client end, without > > However just putting ideas directly into a guideline may not be the best > way to do it. > Ideally one could do something like this: > > 1, Build clear problem statement > 2, Build profiles of who we need to recruit > 3, Build the taskforce, > 4, Have a preliminary deliverable of docvument(s) that clearly state > parameters and the extent and nature of user needs ,author needs, > barriers to adoptions. > 5, Have a preliminary deliverable of potential directions for solutions > and options > 6, Post review decide on what directions to developed > (Funding too would help) > 7, Develop integrated guidelines/ techniques for user agents, authoring > tools and content providers > > In other words , move away from directly writing the guideline and build > a road map to address this issue. > > It may seem like a long road, but it may, in the end, be quicker and > more productive then endless circular arguments. > We may even be able to release 2.0 with a place holder to this work. > > All the best > Lisa Seeman > > Visit us at the UB Access website > UB Access - Moving internet accessibility > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org >>[mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Wendy A Chisholm >>Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 6:26 AM >>To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org >>Subject: 22 Jan 2004 - WCAG WG Teleconference Minutes >> >> >> >>Available at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/01/22-minutes.html >> >>Action Items >>ACTION: gregg and ben take first pass at proposal for >>rewriting 4.1 and 4.2 >>based on today's discussion. >>ACTION: gregg propose reorg of 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 >>ACTION: john determine from list in 3.3 which items apply >>across all sites >>(level 2) from those that are less widely applicable (level 3) >> >>-- >>wendy a chisholm >>world wide web consortium >>web accessibility initiative >>http://www.w3.org/WAI/ >>/-- >> >> > > > > -- andy _______________________________________________ Andy Heath Sheffield Hallam University andy@andyheath.org.uk
Received on Monday, 2 February 2004 04:00:07 UTC