Re: UAAG 1.0 in ERCIM newsletter #46

[This is somewhat of an EO issue, but Harvey is tracking the situation and it
should reflect back on the introduction in the UAAG itself, all the same.
comments at AG:: below.]

At 09:41 AM 2001-07-05 , David Poehlman wrote:
>I think a more imersive example would be better if you are going to use
>it instead of our current summary.  It would be good for instance to
>show speech input and blindness or speech input in addition to blindness
>thus two examples.  perhaps a hearing impaired person seeing audio
>indicators flash instead of or in addition to sounding on the screen and
>I'd put it in a somewhat different light.  I cannot explain this well,
>but it has become tiring for many of us to be showcase material if you
>know what I mean so a different approach to this which again, I am not
>sure of what that might be would be much welcomed.


I would like to second what David is saying.

One of the appropriate defenses when people complain that WCAG 1.0 is "all
about blind issues" is that "motor issues tend to be handled more in the
player, sensory issues in the content."  Along the lines of "hit the high
first" as Daniel was saying in the XML GL context, the number one bread and
butter User Agent issue is keyboard access to all verbs.  Although eyes-free
use does imply that one has to be able to run the interface without visually
observing the position of the mouse cursor, the simplest and most direct
way to
get a naive reader into understanding why something has to be done is starting
with motor disabilities.

If we don't get an other-than-blind example out first in our propaganda
people's awareness of User Agent issues, we are just feeding the flames of the
"WAI only understands blind issues" fires.  Because for the User Agent
guidelines, the blind consumer is not the _first_ consumer that _should_ come
to mind.  In the end, the breadth of the set of guidelines is about making the
Web accessible for everyone, or as many of everyone as we bloody well can.
for illustrative examples we have to sample.  Looking across the set of
documents, we want to be sure to distribute our examples.  For each document,
we want an example that couples well with the subtexts "here, you see how
is a problem" and "this is really something about which something should be
done."  To carry the day for these arguments, playing numbers games (targeting
sweet spots in the demographics) is exactly where we need to be.

This is how I read David's reaction, anyhow.  Is that something like what you
meant, David?


>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Harvey Bingham" <>
>To: <>
>Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 12:10 AM
>Subject: Re: UAAG 1.0 in ERCIM newsletter #46
>At 2001-07-03 13:30, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
>>Daniel Dardailler and I wrote a small piece [1] for the ERCIM
>>about the UAAG 1.0. The text is based on the UAAG 1.0 summary.
>This article is an appropriate addition to the Education Outreach
>resources. The effective use of a person (Ms. Laitinen) to motivate
>the reader's thinking about accessibility is the technique now being
>used in the EO draft "How People with Disabilities Use the Web:"
>>Note: Since the text of this article is not quite the same as the text
>>of the summary, it would be interesting to compare the two and state
>>you prefer. The article version is shorter, for example.
>>  - Ian
>I prefer the article [1].
>1. Fix typo in title "Iinitiative."
>2. I'd condense one of the "third of a trilogy" references.
>3. I'd add links to the references from where they are discussed, and
>4. Move the URL for UA techniques to the references for consistency.
>>Ian Jacobs (  
>>Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783

Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 10:10:55 UTC