W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 1999

RE: please help correct a problem?

From: Scott Luebking <phoenixl@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 15:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199910082223.PAA19615@netcom4.netcom.com>
To: asgilman@iamdigex.net, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Hi, Al

I agree with you, but then the question becomes a little more
interesting.  Does the definition of accessibility change depending on
the nature of the audience?  The argument that came up was that the WAI
guidelines are for the general population like in a library.  Should
there be a different set of guidelines for a more contained environment
like a class?  (For example, if a company has chosen one browser to be
the corporate browser and programs to that browser, can a blind person
who prefers to use lynx argue that he/she should be allowed to use lynx
as an accomodation?)  Suppose that students used a windows application
which was not required to be accessible.  The developers then move the
application to a web environment using Javascript.  What happens in this
situation?  Most mass spectrometers are inaccessible to blind students.
Can professors be required not to use mass spectrometers?  If the
accomodation for mass spectrometers is having a reader, why cannot the
same accomodation be made to students using highly visual/interactive
web pages?

Some people here at Berkeley are wondering if OCR is making a mistake by
specifying those guidelines.  Could a university argue that OCR is
limited in its technical background to make such decisions if the
definition of accessibility is dependent on the environment?  (At least
a couple of professors here on campus are not very pleased by the web
access issues.  Not a fun meeting.)

Perhaps another variation is when will it be reasonable for a university
to assume that each student must be proficient in using Windows?

Scott


> If the issue is scripting, then what the professor proposes fails the
> criterion set down by the regents, because dependency on scripts violates a
> > Priority 1 checkpoint (6.3) in the WCAG.
> 
> Check me on that; did I read it right?
> 
> Al
Received on Friday, 8 October 1999 18:24:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:45 GMT