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

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

From: Peter Thiessen <thiessenp@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:31:47 +0100
Message-ID: <CALf9uGB2m0kSc6KjHBp-L1iD0mUj202rRD0NrFkaHZJOq4m7aA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Klaus Miesenberger <Klaus.Miesenberger@jku.at>
Cc: "sharper@cs.man.ac.uk" <sharper@cs.man.ac.uk>, giorgio brajnik <brajnik@uniud.it>, 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>
I'm a bit on the fence with this one and both arguments sound very
right. (just had a flashback of my minor in philosophy :)

Is the goal more to receive high quality and broadly
related/mostly-related research, or more to include the most specific
and related research?
(not that I'm saying narrowed specific research will be lower quality
just that numbers will probably be against us)

But right,we can talk on Wednesday.

+peter


On 11 March 2012 19:21, Klaus Miesenberger <Klaus.Miesenberger@jku.at> wrote:
> 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 Monday, 12 March 2012 10:32:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 12 March 2012 10:32:24 GMT