W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: Formal Recorded Complaint

From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 19:21:49 +0200
Message-Id: <p0624065dc2d9135e3dbe@[192.168.0.101]>
To: <public-html@w3.org>

At 17:26 +1000 UTC, on 2007-08-03, Jason White wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:09:30AM -0500, Laura Carlson wrote:
>
>> Because of this the access principle should be strengthen to something like:
>>
>> "Design features to be accessible, universal, and inclusive. Access by
>> everyone regardless of disability is an essential. This does not mean
>> that features should be omitted entirely if not all users can fully
>> make use of them. But alternate/equivalent mechanisms must be
>> provided."
>
> I support substituting the above for the current, ambiguous wording in the
> design principles.

Just a note:

Given all the miscommunication due to different uses of terminology, let's
try to take extreme care with that terminology, especially in something like
the Design Principles.

For example (especially when listed together with "accessible" and
"universal") what does "inclusive" mean? There's enough confusion and
disagreement already on what "accessible" means.

Another is that we appear to have some agreement on "equivalent" referring to
content, and "alternate" to the UI  mechanism (and "fallback" to situations
where the UA defaults to an equivalent that is not the author-suggested
'main' one). See also <http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/AccessibilityConsensus
#head-2d72a19043f78d471af365031ec3ab94fe62d1af>


-- 
Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Friday, 3 August 2007 17:31:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:48 UTC