RE: Instruction and Assessment

You have anticipated my response. 

The principle is that Web-based tests and instruction are not necessarily
considered "general-purpose content." Rather, they may, at least in some
circumstances, be considered "special-purpose content."

In order to align the remainder of the document with this approach, I think
that this approach may also necessitate a change to the definition of "Text
content...", which, of course is under revision anyway. Essentially, I would
suggest that, pending further revision, the following phrase be deleted:
"that content represents a general mix of purposes (information, education,
entertainment, commerce)".

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 6:54 PM
> To: Hansen, Eric
> Cc: UA List (E-mail); Ian Jacobs (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Instruction and Assessment
> 
> 
> "Hansen, Eric" wrote:
> > 
> > Known Limitation of the UA Guidelines regarding Instruction 
> and Assessment
> > 
> > In section 1.3, I suggest adding a known limitation 
> regarding effectiveness
> > of instruction or assessments. 
> 
> Hi Eric,
> 
> Here's an argument against adding this: Section 1.2 of the 16 Jan
> draft [1] includes this statement:
> 
>    This document was designed specifically to improve 
>    the accessibility of mainstream user agents with multimedia 
>    capabilities for users with one or more disabilities 
>    (including visual, hearing, physical, and cognitive).
>    In this context, a mainstream user agent is one designed 
>    for the general public to handle general-purpose content 
>    in ordinary operating conditions. 
> 
> Instructions and assessments would not be
> general-purpose content; this is a particular environment
> with particular restrictions.
> 
> So is your concern adequately addressed by the existing statement?
> 
>  - Ian
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010116/#target
> 
> 
> > This is important because provision of
> > alternative representations is central to our accessibility 
> strategy, yet
> > depending on what is being taught or assessed, provision of such
> > alternatives may 'short circuit' or damage the validity of 
> an assessment or
> > the teaching effectiveness of an instructional module. How 
> this potential
> > for damage is addressed is highly specific to the purpose 
> of the instruction
> > and assessment as well as to the intended audience.
> > 
> > New:
> > 
> > "Effectiveness of instruction or assessments. The document 
> does not address
> > issues of effectiveness of instruction or assessments, such 
> as how provision
> > of alternative content may affect inferences about what a 
> person knows or
> > can do in an instructional or assessment setting. For 
> example, the nature of
> > inferences that one could draw about a user's ability to 
> understand an
> > auditory presentation may be influenced by an 
> accessibility-motivated
> > provision of a text equivalent of the presentation."
> > 
> > Other edits are being sent directly to Ian Jacobs.
> 
> -- 
> Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
> Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
>

Received on Friday, 26 January 2001 10:27:00 UTC