Accessibility and Web Standards

Part of the task I've set myself is to understand the requirements of
visually impaired users of websites so that I can preach successfully
for Web Standards adoption giving a reason for so doing (not the only
reason). I asked round at work (a software house) and found that the
term was not understood as I had hoped, so opted for a small straw
poll. I mailed an archaeological mailing list of which I'm a member,
because I thought that here was a fairly interested net savvy bunch
of people, with the following:

QUOTE

I'm writing about accessibility. I need some opinions - you will not
be quoted, I just need to clarify my understanding. Would you be kind
enough to give me (off list to avoid clutter to
mailto:john.colby@btinternet.com) your FIRST reaction to the
following:

1) If a website is accessible, what does it mean?

2) If a museum display is accessible, what does that mean?

Thanks in advance

UNQUOTE

The first question was for the answer I was looking, the second was a
control, as most archaeologists have involvement with museums, and
accessibility of museum displays is very important if anyone wants
funding!

I received 27 responses in an eight hour period. (that's about 7% of the 
list) This is an analysis:

Question 1 (Website accessibility)

7 people gave an answer that in some way or another reasonably well
defined accessibility as it is defined by WAI, 2 of these saying that
Bobby compliance was a necessity. Only one person mentioned WAI by
name.

2 people gave partial answers to the above question.

1 person gave examples of web standards compliant code without
mentioning visual or other handicap.

Question 2 (Museum accessibility)

13 mentions of physical or visual disability

11 mentions (some the same people above) that to be accessible the
display should be intellectually accessible.

My first conclusion (and these are only from this limited straw poll)
is that although accessibility is in some way understood, its not
applied in the same way to electronic access as it is to physical
access among this group.

My second thoughts concern the use of the term accessible - and the
task we have in promoting improved accessibility as a natural
consequence of adopting web standards. How should it be explained?
I'm using examples such as braille readers, speech devices, internet TV
and mobile devices in my teaching and hoping that people will understand.

My conclusion is (unless anyone can suggest a way) that when talking
about web standards and accessibility that it has to be defined - at
least until the term gets into general acceptance. It's not much use
talking about accessibility as a consequence of using web standards
unless the term itself is fully understood, and to make that happen
we'll have to explain it every time.

Its certainly made me think about the language and explanations I'm
using to describe the reasons for adopting standards compliance.

Regards

John