W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2006

the techniques document is hard to follow

From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 07:18:47 +0200
To: WCAG-WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <0e3a01c678a8$669a39a0$1d0aa8c0@IBM4CD7E5EACA1>
I am currently reviewing the techniques document, and I think you need to know that it is really hard for me to follow.

This is an the acid test on whether following  the guidelines actually  mean that someone with a learning disability can access content. They don't.  Understand,  I review a lot of specifications  for the W3C as they get to last call (sometimes for ISO, Dublin core etc). Normally the concepts in the content are  much much harder, and just incase this could be any stronger, so far I was already familiar with every technique I have reviewed (which is why I can follow it at all).  But, because I have a disability, our  techniques document is the hardest to follow of any W3C specification I have reviewed. 

 (The key problem is I do not have a reliable visual or auditory short term memory, so I can not track of what the success criteria numbers refer to. It is the same problem as acronyms and I am forever having to scroll or click to the guideline, miss my place, have trouble remembering where I was etc...)

The key point I am making:  We have followed our own guidelines including level three success criteria. But the result was not that the content was accessible to someone with a learning disability.

My 2 cents, is we need to lose the clame that we have written guildines that will make content accessibility to people with a learning and cognitive disabilities and then we need to start working on an extension checkpoint that does address the different needs of Learning styles. We need to do it like any difficult technical problem. We need to analyze the problems in depth, understand the issues, make a gap analysis, then innovate and come out with a solution, then we need to test it, and then write the guideline.

All the best
Received on Tuesday, 16 May 2006 04:20:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:45 UTC