RE: Definition of Accessibility Problem

My vote also.

At 09:06 PM 2/9/2004 +0100, you wrote:

>Very good point, Jutta. My suggestion distorted the previous definition. In
>the meantime, I prefer Jan's proposal in his mail of 8. Feb.
>(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JanMar/0058.html)
>where he breaks it into a tool problem and a content problem. My vote goes
>to his 2 definitions!
>
>regards, Karen
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On Behalf
>Of Jutta Treviranus
>Sent: 9. februar 2004 20:18
>To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Definition of Accessibility Problem
>
>
>
>I think this definition refers more to the person having the problem
>than the problem that prevents access. When I look through the
>document we use the term not in the sense: "I'm having an
>accessibility problem with this content," but more in the sense, "
>this is a problem that is preventing access."
>
>Jutta
>
> >Continuing the definition mulling from the AUWG Teleconference Minutes (Feb
> >2, 2004)
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JanMar/0051.html
> >
> >ACCESSIBILITY PROBLEM:
> >
> >We have:
> >
> >Inaccessible Web content or authoring tools cannot be used by some people
> >with disabilities. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 [ WCAG20]
> >describes how to create accessible Web content.
> >
> >I propose:
> >
> >The inability to access web content or authoring tools, especially by
>people
> >with a disability. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]
>and
> >2.0 [WCAG20] describe the requirements for making web content accessible.
> >
> >*access* is meant to be a link (perhaps??) to the definition for access at
> >http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/Glossary/printable.html#A, which is
> >"To interact with a system entity in order to manipulate, use, gain
> >knowledge of, and/or obtain a representation of some or all of a system
> >entity's resources." And maybe the "especially by people with a disability"
> >can be dropped? It really doesn't matter who you are - if you can't get at
> >the info you need, you've got an accessibility problem.
> >
> >I was a bit unsure about the longevity of this definition with links to
>WCAG
> >1.0 and 2.0. We only have a [REF] to the 2.0 guidelines. 1.0 is the TR.
> >Perhaps the link could be to the WCAG home page and say "The Web Content
> >Accessibility Guidelines Working Group has guidelines that describe..." and
> >sneak around the exact version that way?
> >
> >Comments?? Jutta? Anyone?
> >
> >regards, Karen Mardahl
>
>
>--

Received on Monday, 9 February 2004 15:28:42 UTC