- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <po@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 22:33:26 -0500
- To: "IG - WAI Interest Group List (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
The new version promised in the email below is now on the site. as before there is a table version and a linear version of the guidelines. Table version is http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/19980806.htm The linear version is http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/19980806txt.htm DO NOT BOOKMARK THESE LINKS THOUGH. SINCE THE VERSION WILL CHANGE. INSTEAD BOOKMARK THE HOME PAGE FOR GL WHERE YOU WILL ALWAYS FIND THE LATEST. THE URL FOR THE GL GROUP IS. http://www.w3.org/wai/gl/ This version has incorporated as many of the following as we could (compatibly) cover * comments on the lists * comments made at Peterborough * the results of coordination talks between the chairs of all the guidelines and tool groups We still have a few to work on but wanted to get this out to the list for use, study and comment. Please do not refer to the Apr 14th version anymore. It is superceded by the work on this new version and is quite out of date. You can follow the work on the new version by checking for updates on the GL working page at any time http://www.w3.org/wai/gl/ Thanks much Gregg for the GL working group. -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Human Factors Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis. Director - Trace R & D Center Gv@trace.wisc.edu, http:// trace.wisc.edu / FAX 608/262-8848 For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@ trace.wisc.edu -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden Sent: Monday, August 03, 1998 12:13 PM To: 'Kynn Bartlett'; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org Subject: RE: Preliminary AGI Results: Thanks Kynn. This is very much in line with what we have been hearing re the old guidelines. This is very nicely presented though and shines light on a number of aspects we didn't have good feedback on before. We have a new, much improved, version which we will be posting to IG very soon (within next 10 days I would guess) that addresses the table and other problems there were with the old Apr 14th guidelines. If you want to look now you can see much of this on the GL site www.w3c.org/wai/gl . We will be revising and updating it soon though, so to save you reading it all over twice to find all the changes, (there are a slew of edits we are currently making), you might want to wait a few days. We'll post something here soon on it. Thanks again for your efforts on this. Looking forward to comments from everyone on the new version. Gregg For the GL working group -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Human Factors Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis. Director - Trace R & D Center Gv@trace.wisc.edu, http:// trace.wisc.edu / FAX 608/262-8848 For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@ trace.wisc.edu -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Kynn Bartlett Sent: Saturday, August 01, 1998 8:15 PM To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org Subject: Preliminary AGI Results: What They Thought As part of the second questionnaire in the HTML Writers Guild's Accessibility Guidelines Implementation project, the participants were asked to give their thoughts on specific questions regarding the W3C's WAI guidelines for page authors dated April 14, 1998. The results included: Overall Opinion: 90% of the participants liked the guidelines document 10% of the participants did not Size of Document: 74% felt the length was appropriate 15% felt it was too short 10% felt it was too long Complexity: 69% were satisfied with the complexity 21% felt it was too technical 10% felt it was not technical enough Emphasis on HTML 4.0: 56% felt the emphasis on HTML 4.0 was appropriate 38% stated that HTML 4.0 was emphasized too much 2% had no opinion Emphasis on Stylesheets/CSS: 54% felt there was _too much_ emphasis on the use of styles 36% stated the emphasis was appropriate 10% stated no opinion Recommended vs. Required: 97% understood the difference between recommended and required 3% did not understand this difference 92% felt the distinction is important 5% did not feel it was an important distinction 3% offered no opinion on the importance of the distinction Interim vs. New: 51% did _not_ understand the difference between Interim and New 49% did understand the difference 49% felt the distinction important 25% did not feel the distinction important 25% did not offer an opinion on the importance of the distinction Effects of Reading the Guidelines: 89% stated that they have new insight into accessible web design after reading the guidelines 8% stated they did not 3% did not know These results can be used to form a general impression of how a typical web designer reads and understands the WAI guidelines for page authoring. In particular, attention should be drawn to the fact that most felt the emphasis on stylesheet usage to be inappropriate, and the distinction between "Interim" and "New" suggestions was not easily understood. More complete results from the AGI project will be released as analysis continues. The AGI homepage is at: http://www.hwg.org/opcenter/projects/agi/ -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://www.idyllmtn.com/~kynn/ Owner, Idyll Mountain Internet http://www.idyllmtn.com/ Board member, HTML Writers Guild http://www.hwg.org/ Virtual Dog Show Co-Coordinator http://www.dogshow.com/ MLists Mailing List Service http://www.mlists.com/
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 1998 00:14:01 UTC