W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2000

RE: [Fwd: [webwatch] How is access defined?]

From: Charles F. Munat <charles@munat.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 15:49:24 -0800
To: "David Poehlman" <poehlman@clark.net>, "WAI Interest Group" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Cc: "Cynthia Waddell" <cynthia.waddell@ci.sj.ca.us>
David Poehlman wrote:
"I don't think we can actually define access or accessability in this context except to describe what it circumscribes."


Do you think that clear lines can be drawn as to what is acceptable (and accessible) practice and what is not? Or should I say "clearer lines"?

Up until now we've discussed accessibility in the context of web site development, with the assumption that anything that moved one in the direction of greater accessibility was worthwhile. And we've shied away from declaring one site "accessible" and another "inaccessible", preferring to see things as a continuum. But I wonder if, with regard to the ADA, we might not need to start thinking of how this might all play out in a courtroom.

I believe that the ADA should be a last resort (or maybe next to the last, depending on how violent a mood I'm in), but I do believe that we need it for stubborn cases. So while I'm all for continuing our current "continuum" approach, I'm willing to discuss how things might be phrased differently for less enlightened (IMO) audiences, or for those who simply must have clear cut instructions.

It will be interesting to see what the Federal regulations have to say (and how they say it).

Ms. Waddell, if you're there, do you have any thoughts on this?

Charles F. Munat,
Munat, Inc.
Seattle, Washington
Received on Friday, 11 February 2000 18:49:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:07 UTC