- From: Matt May <mcmay@yahoo.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 08:22:22 -0700
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn@reef.com>, "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@erols.com>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@erols.com> > Matt, the W3C has had the issue of cognitive disabilities before them for > two years. Probably longer, but I've been here two years. Progress has been > impeded by the number of new members who had difficulty accepting that the > need was addressable. The most obvious and simple solution - to provide > images/graphics/pictures/illustrations has been ridiculed. Anne, it's been "ridiculed" because it's not a solution. I've wasted far too much time trying to argue the point to try it again here. > Really, I don't think that "understanding" the other disabilities is much > of an excuse. Understanding those disabilities and the needs and obstacles > they face should be the responsibility of everyone working on these issues. As I said, the bias toward vision is simple: vision-related checkpoints are the most common and the most provable. Furthermore, if you asked anyone involved in the web whom web accessibility benefits, I'd bet that 90% would respond "the blind" as #1 or #2 unprompted. Why? Because they had to put all those alt tags in their sites. In the legislative meetings I've been a party to, I know there's very little time to say something like, "well, Ms. Lawmaker, let me tell you a little about achromatopsia..." I also know that I've had to sell accessibility to executives in 30 seconds in the hall. Now, I'm confident that EO is well-versed in making the argument for all forms of disability, but if visually-impaired users are the easiest for people to conceptualize, and it causes accessibility as a whole to gain traction, so be it. It is a step forward, and that is what advocacy is all about. Anne, a rising tide lifts all boats. This has been my core value all along. I am not as concerned with perceptions related to disability and accessibility as I am with checkpoints that cannot reasonably and provably be satisfied, and the experience here in the U.S. shows that the legislators who have adopted portions of WCAG 1 agree with me. I would rather have a reasonable document that content providers will accept willingly than an ambitious document that will be picked apart, or a rigid document that won't be supported at all. - m _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2001 11:22:37 UTC