Gateway Techniques draft: responses to two editorial notes

For what it's worth...
 
From the Gateway draft:
 
Editorial Note:The use of "clearly" and "concisely" makes this
untestable. Will that be an issue for readers?
[js: I hope not-- the idea here is to provide guidance that helps people
understand what they need to do. We could add a note saying that clarity
and concision require human judgment, and that such judgment should be
informed by at least informal feedback from users, or at best by formal
user testing.]
 
Editorial Note: In this draft, part C of the Level 1 success criterion
for Guideline 1.1 is divided into two techniques this one (music without
words)
and the next (visual art). Is this confusing? Should they merge into
one?
[js: I think it would be more confusing to treat the tasks of describing
non-vocal audio and visual art somewhat differently-- the descriptive
techniques and vocabularies are very different, and so is the issue of
what gets "displayed," since you can't "display" audio. We may need to
add a note to this effect.]
 
 
 

"Good design is accessible design."

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director 
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin 
FAC 248C 
1 University Station G9600 
Austin, TX 78712 
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu 
Web  <http://www.ital.utexas.edu/>
http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility