W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: Edit in Scope section

From: Doyle <doyleb@alaska.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 19:47:29 -0900
Message-ID: <000d01c3a421$166faf40$6601a8c0@madyburnett>
To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Re: Edit in Scope section
I agree with the word ALL but still have an issue with the phrase "full range" - knowing full-well we mean all.  Maybe it's the educator in me that had a problem with the term/phrase, "full inclusion" some years back.  Maybe it's because the phrase will not translate well in other languages - I don't know.  All types of disabilities is what we are talking about.  I feel the term "full range" is a bit vague but it's not a make or break issue with me - only my opinion.

Doyle Burnett
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gregg Vanderheiden 
  To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 3:16 PM
  Subject: RE: Edit in Scope section

  I think the objective was to say that the guidelines are meant to apply to people with all different types of disabilities.    This is in contrast to guidelines that apply to some (different disabilities) but omit others.

    'different types of disabilities"  could mean just   vision, hearing, and physical.    The ALL was meant to make the goal to include all. 

  (or at least all that can be addressed by web content design.  Lower back pain and chemical sensitivity being two that are not in this category).  

  What we had was clearly bad English.     But how to do we do it well to cover all.  

  Full range is the best I've seen of the suggestions.  Implies not only types but degrees.   



   -- ------------------------------ 
  Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
  Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
  Director - Trace R & D Center 
  University of Wisconsin-Madison 

  -----Original Message-----
  From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doyle Burnett
  Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 2:53 PM
  To: Sailesh Panchang; W3C Web Content
  Subject: Re: Edit in Scope section

  I would agree with Sailesh - full range is a confusing phrase as it could be implied that a person or persons have the full range of a GIVEN disability.  I feel, "usable by people having different kinds of disabilities" is the best way to present what I am guessing we're trying to say.

  Doyle Burnett

  Doyle Burnett
  Education and Training Specialist
  Multiple Disabilities Program
  Special Education Service Agency

  On 11/5/03 11:24 AM, "Sailesh Panchang" <sailesh.panchang@deque.com> wrote:

  Refer to WCAG 2.0 Scope. A statement reads:
  "...and usable by people with a full range of disabilities. "

  Probably  what is meant is  "usable by people  having different kinds of disabilities"
  Does "people with full range"  imply   only those those individuals each of whom have  all disabilities  imaginable? Probably not.
  Sailesh Panchang
  Senior Accessibility Engineer 
  Deque Systems,11180  Sunrise Valley Drive, 
  4th Floor, Reston VA 20191
  Tel: 703-225-0380 Extension 105 
  E-mail: sailesh.panchang@deque.com
  Fax: 703-225-0387
  * Look up <http://www.deque.com> *
Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2003 23:35:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:46 UTC