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

RE: Edit in Scope section

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 09:14:28 -0600
Message-ID: <C46A1118E0262B47BD5C202DA2490D1A1DFBE3@MAIL02.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, "Doyle" <doyleb@alaska.net>, <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
But I like Kirsten's suggestion that we "turn this around" and talk
instead about "users with a wide range of abilities" etc.
 
 


"Good design is accessible design." 
Please note our new name and URL!
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/
<http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/> 


 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of John M Slatin
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 9:10 am
To: Doyle; gv@trace.wisc.edu; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Edit in Scope section


There's a difference between (a) "people with the full range of
disabilities" and (b) "the full range of people with disabilities."
 
(a) *might* be misconstrued as referring only to specific individuals
who have many disabilities themselves (i.e., a person who has blindness,
deafness, motor impairment, and cognitive disabilities all at once)--
though in all honesty I htink you'd have to work at it to (mis)read it
this way.
 
(b) designates a range of people, each of whom has (one or more)
disabilities.
 
I'm not necessarily arguing for "full range," but I do think (b) is
clear.  Perhaps "broad range of people with disabilities" or "wide range
of people with disabilities" might address Doyle's concern about our
seeming to claim too much if we tak about "the full range of people with
disabilities."
 
John
 
 


"Good design is accessible design." 
Please note our new name and URL!
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/
<http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/> 


 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Doyle
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 10:47 pm
To: gv@trace.wisc.edu; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: 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 <mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu>  
	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.   

	 

	hmmmm

	 

	
	Gregg
	
	 -- ------------------------------ 
	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
	dburnett@sesa.org
	Www.sesa.org
	-- 
	
	
	
	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 Thursday, 6 November 2003 10:14:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:26 GMT