W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: A little back to basics (Re: Users should have (Re: Fresh start? Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities))

From: Scott Luebking <phoenixl@sonic.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 17:48:09 -0800
Message-Id: <200112280148.fBS1m9cV022331@newbolt.sonic.net>
To: kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com, phoenixl@sonic.net, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Hi,

Thanks.  Was there any thought given to a definition like:

    "A web page can be considered accessible to a person with a disability
    if that person can understand the content on the page and be able
    to interact with that information with the goal of being as effective
    and efficient as a person without a disability when using the web page."

In some ways, the second approach doesn't make sense.  One problem is
that it is possible to follow the guidelines and still end up with a web
page which can be not easily understood.  Also, the principles do not
necessarily make content accessible on various devices.  Ever try to use
a long web page which meets the guidelines from a web-enabled cell phone?


Another possible definition could be something like:

    "A set of versions of a web page can be considered accessible to
    a person with a disability if both of these conditions are true:
    
      a.  each version in the set has the exact same information and
          equivalent interaction with the information as that of any
	  other version in the set
	  
      b.  the set contains a version of the web page such that the person
          can understand the content on the page and be able to interact with
	  that information with the goal of being as effective and efficient
	  as a person without a disability when using the web page."

Kind of long.

Scott

> At 3:42 PM -0800 12/27/01, Scott Luebking wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I'm preparing some answers to some questions from some CHI-WEB people.
> >Is there a definition of what an accessible web page is?  (This might
> >also be helpful for any future testing.)
> 
> A page is considered accessible if it can be used by users with
> disabilities.  It's not a very rigorous definition, but it's the
> one in WCAG 1:
> 
> <blockquote cite="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#accessible"
>              xml:space="preserve">
>       Accessible
> Content is accessible when it may be used by someone with a disability.
> </blockquote>
> 
> There are obviously serious problems with this definition.
> 
> WCAG 2.0 draft does not attempt to define accessible, but instead
> refers to accessible web sites and, by implication, kinda defines
> accessibility:
> 
> <blockquote cite="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#intro-purpose">
> This document outlines design principles for creating accessible Web 
> sites. When these principles are ignored, individuals with 
> disabilities may not be able to access the content at all, or they 
> may be able to do so only with great difficulty. When these 
> principles are employed, they also make Web content accessible to a 
> variety of Web-enabled devices, such as phones, handheld devices, 
> kiosks, network appliances, etc. By making content accessible to a 
> variety of devices, the content is now accessible to people in a 
> variety of situations.
> </blockquote>
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> -- 
> Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                 http://kynn.com
> Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain            http://idyllmtn.com
> Web Accessibility Expert-for-hire          http://kynn.com/resume
> January Web Accessibility eCourse           http://kynn.com/+d201
Received on Thursday, 27 December 2001 20:48:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:17 GMT