- From: david poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 08:23:05 -0400
- To: "RUST Randal" <RRust@COVANSYS.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
perhaps we need a word other than accessibility or usability to define what we are aiming at, but it is clear to me in any event that in the case of providing the functionality required and stated in the guidelines, that we need both. Since there are in fact, many examples now of different types of sites that are usable by people with disabilities and assistive technologies, the defense of confusion in court may be nullified. Johnnie Apple Seed ----- Original Message ----- From: "RUST Randal" <RRust@COVANSYS.com> To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 8:04 AM Subject: RE: Who needs what Re: A Call to Reorganize WCAG 2.0 Alastair Campbell wrote: > Can machine testable rules predict the performance of users > accomplishing tasks on a web site? In my mind, you are talking about usability, not accessibility. Accessibility means that the content and function of a web page can be accessed by all users. Usability deals with performance of the functionality of a web page when acted upon by a user. > Randal RUST wrote: > > Accessibility has as much to do with logically and > correctly > structuring a web page as anything. > > And this is machine testable? At a low level, this is part of what HTML validation does. > By all means categorise checkpoints into things that can be tested > automatically, and things that need human interpretation. However, we > should not get rid of the human element. I agree. I do think that the human element is important, but that those decisions should be left up to the designer or developer. WCAG should provide suggestions in this area, but not Guidelines. The Guidelines should deal strictly with keeping the use of W3C technologies accessible. > Accessibility does tend to have some things that are easy to check > automatically, and tools can be a great help in catching > certain issues. > But tools should be just that, a useful thing to help > development. Tools > can't be the final 'test'. If WCAG continues to be ambiguous, it will only serve to cause further confusion over accessibiliy. If the recent ruling in New York starts the ball rolling, there will be more lawsuits over accessibility and web sites. People will look to WCAG as the predecessor for all other accessibility rules and see that the they are not clear. Lawyers for the defense will make the case that a web site cannot possibly follow a set of outdated, confusing guidelines. And they will win on that. In essence, the very guidelines that have been developed to promote accessibility will hinder the movement. Is this a guess? Of course. But in the United States, lawyers live for finding loopholes in the rules. > Having best practices is an essential part of writing the > best possible > guidelines. Perhaps this involves re-writing the bridge or techniques > documents rather than the technology-agnostic guidelines? Why not make the bridge techniques the Guidelines? They deal strictly with the W3C technologies, and that would fit everything together very nice. ---------- Randal Rust Covansys Corp. Columbus, OH
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2004 12:22:30 UTC