- From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 06:19:50 +0200
- To: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
- CC: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
My comments are in line with "lisa:" before them Joe Clark wrote: > > Here is my attempt at rewriting 1.3. My tack here was to write success > criteria that applied mostly to structured formats, like (X)HTML and > tagged PDF, while allowing unstructured formats (JPEG, plain text) > where necessary, since they're not going to go away and are not > necessarily inaccessible. lisa: In part I disagree with this premise, In part I agree. If something is not inaccessible then it must be allowed in the guidelines - agreed. If something is inaccessible then, we should try and disallow it. This will affect people chose of technology , although not always. when people chose an inaccessible technology they are going to be less accessible. And, more important these guidelines do affect how technologies such as flash, develop. A lot of effort has been made by companies such as macromedia (Flash) on the platform level, to improve accessibility.The amount of expensive changes to these technologies will be reduced if the guidelines can be conformed to en without accessible technology, > > Guideline 1.3 > Where permitted by the markup languages > and technologies in use, ensure the separation of > structure, presentation, and behaviour. > > Every markup language (e.g., HTML) or technology (PDF) has limits > within which we must work, hence the phrase "where permitted." lisa: I think it is clear that guidelines are to the extent that it is possible. Techniques should show the extent, and success criteria give the level required for conformance > If you're using something like JPEG or plain text, the guideline > becomes inapplicable. I am not in favour of warping the guideline so > that the only thing you could ever use would be HTML. We know in > practice that the vast majority of Web pages will use HTML; we don't > have to gild the lily. > lisa: I am in favor of creating guidelines that define accessibility, and hence guide technologies to become accessible > WHY ISN'T "INFORMATION" IN THERE? > Because we don't need it. It's tautological and unnecessary for the > competent Web developer. > lisa: I do not understand this - what is tautological? > Further, the Introduction to our guidelines lays it out already: "This > document outlines design principles for creating accessible Web > content." We are writing the Web *Content* Accessibility Guidelines. > Content is information. lisa: People are more likely to follow the guidelines then the advice in the introduction. I see the introduction as an overview and background, and there is no problem with things in the introduction being repeated in the guidelines. All the best Lisa
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2005 03:20:17 UTC