Response to the User Agent Guidelines draft.

I know this is late but just in case you could still use this...

I just joined and haven't caught up with every thing yet but I did get
an opportunity to give a cursory look over the guidelines and
techniques.

Aside from a few wordo's or grammar errors it was well organized and
looks good.

However I felt that the present audience for this document are people
with experience in designing for the disabled rather than the actual
people who will be using the guidelines. Is this intentional? Is there
another version planed down the line?  This is what I would like to see
in a document for people designing browser, web pages and such. (I
haven't gotten to the Web Authoring document yet.)

As some one who has written an internal guidelines document for
engineers and designers I have found that laying the ground work is as
important as giving directions. If I were a developer and had to use
this document I would want to know about the disabilities you are
addressing. Most would find it obvious that vision impaired persons
would need assistance but most would be unfamiliar with the cognitive
and learning disabilities as well as the physical limitations of some
crippling illnesses. The "Why am I doing it this way?" question plagues
you until they understand this. Additionally many of them would be
unfamiliar with the viewing devices and their specifications for input.
(I sure am. Could any one point me in the right direction?)

In the techniques section, it  is not obvious as to who needs to
implement what. An attempt should be made to make this more clear. (I
think it was already mentioned that this was needed elsewhere.)

I still have to finish my review but since my response was after the
deadline I thought I had better give you a first impressions response
now.

Lakespur L. Roca
Client UI
Usability Engineer
Netscape Communications Inc.

Received on Thursday, 12 November 1998 20:07:16 UTC