W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: 3.3- time to take a step back?

From: Andy Heath <a.k.heath@shu.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 08:53:43 +0000
Message-ID: <401E1017.7040806@shu.ac.uk>
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 ?


> 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

Andy Heath
Sheffield Hallam University
Received on Monday, 2 February 2004 04:00:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:32 UTC