- From: John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca>
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:23:25 -0400
- To: "'Mike Brown'" <mike@signify.co.nz>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Mike Brown wrote: > How far is it realistic to make comprehension of content an > accessbility issue? Fair or not, it *is* something that we need to consider. Knowing the target audience is an important aspect of development, to be sure, but this point also illustrates *why* mechanical testing and "Bobby" icons alone are a poor substitute for real, human interaction and input in the testing phase. > > In building a site, the aim is to make it accessible to > anyone. I don't think that's unrealistic. We may fail at > times, or not do it the best way, but it's something we try to attain. > > But to make understanding the content an accessibility issue? > How far do you go? At what reading age does it become unaccessible? > > Note that I'm not at all arguing against clear, well-written > and edited content. Or against providing content that is > understandable by a 9 year old, or someone with Down's > Syndrome if they are part of the target audience. But does > every site have to provide content that is understandable "an > average educated nine year old" in order to be considered accessible? No, but given the broad subject matter, the importance of it, etc. there is no reason why a larger site wouldn't/couldn't tailor content to different groups - from scientific "jargon" for doctors, health practitioners and others well versed in the subject, right through to a section targeted at young school age children with simple to grasp, yet important subject matter (perhaps even with Teacher materials associated to it). Each section could then be written with the target audience in mind. The real key, again, is identifying your audience and providing for them. Given this particular subject matter (coupled with the site owner/authors) would be a (the?) deciding factor. If a site is produced with public funds, etc., then yes, a broader scope is a realistic mandate; conversely, if it is a private site ("My Life with Diabetes"), then, understandably there is more latitude. This case is complicated because it is the NHS Direct Online (NHS being National Health Service?) - consequently they *would* (IMHO) have an obligation to ensure that the content is written towards a slightly below average reader constituency, at least in terms of basic content. This is not to argue that the whole site must be written this way, but I believe the article's main thrust was that "over-all", it was too complicated for the average lay person. > > That's not a requirement of every book in the library on > diabetes. Why should it be a requirement of every website on diabetes? I don't think it is. The WCAG Priority 1-14.1 checkpoint reads: "Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site's content". In this case, what is (again IMO) "appropriate" for the site in question is content that the average citizen can easily digest, with "Further Reading" or advanced content available via deeper links and or external links. I think the clarion bell was sounding due to the public funds involved... Cheers! JF -- John Foliot foliot@wats.ca Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca Web Accessibility Testing and Services http://www.wats.ca 1.866.932.4878 (North America)
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2004 22:23:33 UTC