W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2003

Will try to call in late

From: R. Miguel Bermeo <miguel.bermeo@advansia.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 08:07:45 -0500
Message-ID: <E18F932C3461D41186250050DA18DBD6D5C9ED@EF_MAIL>
To: "'jbrewer@w3.org'" <jbrewer@w3.org>, "'sailesh.panchang@deque.com'" <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
Cc: "'w3c-wai-eo@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Everyone, I do apologize. I am going to be late on the call. 

Thank you,

--------------------------
R. Miguel Bermeo
Chief Executive Officer
Advansia, Inc.
t.  973.509.9800 x 34.
f.  973.509.8884
e. miguel.bermeo@advansia.com
www.advansia.com

"Revolutionary Revenue Centric Solutions" 


-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
To: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
CC: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Sent: Thu Apr 03 21:35:11 2003
Subject: Re: Accessibility definition - rationale


At 10:06 AM 2/20/2003 -0500, Sailesh Panchang wrote:
>Hello All,
>
>Comments for consideration:
>
>1. Inaccessible websites  excludes PWD and is regarded as discriminatory. 
>So concept of "equivalent facilitation" or offering the same functionality 
>to PWD as for non-PWD is an important dimensionm that the definition 
>should bring out.

JB: Offering the same functionality seems clearer than equivalent 
facilitation, which is borrowing a policy concept into a technical area. 
But both seem like technical and/or abstract terms that the average reader 
of these slides may not quickly grasp.

>The draft I sent a couple of days ago includes this.
>
>  <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
/>
>
>2. An earlier or perhaps the first draft had an important concept:
>
>"         * and that works with technologies that some people 
>with  disabilities use"
>
>I think this is what the term "robust" conveys. Hence this concept should 
>not   be dropped from the definition. The draft I sent brings it back.

JB: agreed

>3. The Understandability: This applies to language; plus  use of simple 
>and short sentences to the extent possible. But ability to understand 
>structure of Web page (frames, tables, forms, link names etc) is important 
>too and helps in navigability and operability. So I have brought it to the 
>top of the list. Admittedly, there may be no definite objective measure 
>for understandability.

JB: yes, a problem

>4. It is necessary that the definition clearly  distinguishes  between 
>content accessibility and authoring tools accessibility. The former is of 
>greater relevance to most people as accessibility of authoring tools 
>impacts only those inclined on development.

JB: a very important aspect, towards proliferating accessible Web sites, is 
the extent to which authoring tools facilitate rather than impede the 
production of accessible content and sites. Since the Web was intended to 
be interactive, authoring is, in principle, just as an important activity 
as browsing.

>At the present time this distinction is kind of intertwined and does not 
>come out separately. In the definition discussed on Feb 14,  the phrase 
>"use for surfing the Web or to build websites"  describes computer access 
>technologies used by  some PWD and does not really bring out that 
>accessibility of authoring tools is relevant to Web acccessibility.
>
>
>
>5. The fact that accessibility is a legal requirement in some countries 
>really has no place in a definition slide, was recognized and dropped. 
>Similarly, that accessibility also benefits others is not important. In 
>this slide we are not trying to sell accessibility or explain all benefits 
>but just define it.
>
>
>
>6. I bounced the opening sentence of the definition we discussed on Feb-14 
>with friends (lay people in accessibility) : the "accessible to 
>all"   phrase. They objected  to use of a term that we are trying to 
>define. One said that statement does not add a whole lot of value and is 
>almost like saying:
>
>"Web accessibility, well means an accessible Web!"
>
>
>
>7. It was suggested that   we avoid jargon like "assistive technology" or 
>"functionality" from the first slide. I object to use of HTML or CSS 
>orSMIL etc on the same grounds in the opening slide. In fact  this is 
>relevant in a "how to achieve accessibility" slide than in a definition 
>slide, which view was accepted last Friday. So I suggest we drop that line.

JB: We could provide links to things that some people may be less familiar 
with.

- Judy


>I believe that the definition I sent earlier this week  might work out 
>with some tweeking.
>
>Thanks for your time.
>Sailesh Panchang
>Senior Accessibility Engineer
>Deque Systems Inc
>11752, Valley Ridge Circle, Fairfax, VA 22033
>Tel: 703-218-8018
>Fax: 703-218-5047
>E-mail: <mailto:sailesh.panchang@deque.com>sailesh.panchang@deque.com
>* Look up <<http://www.deque.com>http://www.deque.com> *

-- 
Judy Brewer    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium
(W3C)
MIT/LCS Room NE43-355, 200 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA
Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 08:03:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:35 GMT