W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-rd@w3.org > March 2012

Antw: Re: [urgent] input from WAI Coordination Group on mobile accessibility pre-cal

From: Klaus Miesenberger <Klaus.Miesenberger@jku.at>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 19:21:44 +0100
Message-Id: <4F5CFB4802000099000D5B85@gwia1.im.jku.at>
To: "sharper@cs.man.ac.uk" <sharper@cs.man.ac.uk>, "giorgio brajnik" <brajnik@uniud.it>
Cc: "Vivienne CONWAY" <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>, "Peter Thiessen" <thiessenp@gmail.com>, "Simon Harper" <simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk>, "Yeliz Yesilada" <yyeliz@metu.edu.tr>,"RDWG" <public-wai-rd@w3.org>, "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>
Hi all,
 
am back from a three day meeting making decisions on 370 contributions
to ICCHP. And this has often been the question in making difficult
decisions.
 
IMO this very much depends on the situation. I support to outline that
we are calling for contributions which are closely related to PwD
(following WHO including aging) or which show according impact on
improving accessibility of this target group. Otherwise it gets to
unspecific.
 
If somebody contributes to aspects related to temporary and situational
problems, she/he will give according arguments - and we have to evaluate
them in terms of adequacy and impact on accessibility.
 
Klaus

>>> <sharper@cs.man.ac.uk> 3/10/2012 11:06 >>>
OK so one of my contentions is that accessibility and disability
involve
people who may share an intersection but are not the same set - and
that
we are interested in accessibility (not exclusively disability). In
this
case, low income, literacy, developing regions, situational
impairments
would all be included.

For instance if we have an abstract which is about mobile phone users
without a disability but who are situationally impaired by the device
-
maybe with some interesting insights into constrained usage - would we
reject it as not being on topic?

What about abstracts which discuss the problems of web usage in
developing
regions?

I think accessibility is much bigger than disability alone and is not
confined to the WHO definition of disability? Further, the WHO
definition
is written with quite open definitions but all in the implicit context
of
impairment - for instance there are plenty of 'activity limitations'
which
can occur which would not be considered to be a disability.

We can discuss all this in more detail on the telecon - I'm just
concerned
we are loosing yet more pre-call time.

Cheers

> I really don't know where to stand, but I'm throwing my bits anyway
and
> now, as Josh nicely put it, will see the brickbats fly :-) .
>
> I think one part of the solution is in better clarifying what really
> does "people with disability" mean? do that include elderly? or
people
> that are temporarily impaired?
>
> If we take the WHO def
>
> <quote>
> Disabilities is an umbrella term, covering impairments, activity
> limitations, and participation restrictions. An impairment is a
problem
> in body function or structure; an activity limitation is a
difficulty
> encountered by an individual in executing a task or action; while a
> participation restriction is a problem experienced by an individual
in
> involvement in life situations.
>
> Thus disability is a complex phenomenon, reflecting an interaction
> between features of a person*s body and features of the society in
which
> he or she lives.
>
>   [http://www.who.int/topics/disabilities/en/]
> </quote>
>
> then I think that Simon's initial comment on the narrowness of the
> meaning of  "pwd" is not fully justified.
>
> However I'm not sure that this is the intended meaning by the vast
> majority of the people that would read the cfp.
>
>
>
>    Giorgio
>
>
Received on Sunday, 11 March 2012 18:22:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 11 March 2012 18:22:23 GMT