W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2006

RE: WCAG 2.0 Conformance Proposals for 30 November 2006

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 17:27:40 -0600
To: "'Jason White'" <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <016901c71a57$4b8c47b0$c117a8c0@NC84301>

Hmmm

This is indeed an important point.  The problem with the approach suggested
is that for plug-ins etc non-discriminatory means that the cost for people
with disabilities is the same as for those without.  So
accessibility-enabled plug-ins should be the same cost and availability as
non-accessibility enabled plug-ins.   

But for AT the cost to people WITHOUT disabilities is $0.  There is no way
to have the cost for people with disabilities be $0 for their AT. (would be
nice.)  And I don't think we want to say that if people with out
disabilities can access it without AT then people with disabilities should
be able to access it without needing AT.   

So the non-discrimination approach doesn't quite work for the AT end of
things. 


Gregg
 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jason White
> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 12:37 AM
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 Conformance Proposals for 30 November 2006
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 06:28:23AM -0500, Bailey, Bruce wrote:
> > This is feedback with regard to:
> > http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/11/conformance-revs.html
> > 
> > The document is really good, my hat is off to the folks 
> pulling this together.  It is hard work.
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly.
> 
> In the discussion of availability (condition 1 of what it 
> means for a technology to be an AEWT), the document refers 
> several times to assistive technology that is available to 
> "almost all users", but without specifying precisely what is 
> required. For example, an assistive technology should be 
> regarded as available to almost all users even though it is 
> not installed by default on users' workstations.
> 
> In part 2 of the same section, we have clear requirements for 
> the availability of an AEWT, namely that it is available (in 
> a non-discriminatory fashion) for download or purchase. I 
> suggest that the same requirement should apply to assistive 
> technologies for purposes of their being "available to almost 
> all users".
> 
> In sum, I am suggesting that there should only be one 
> availability requirement, and that the conditions spelled out 
> already in the draft should apply to both AEWT's and 
> supporting assistive technologies (to the extent that these 
> are not included in user agents by default).
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2006 23:27:57 GMT

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