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

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

From: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 21:01:40 -0500
Message-ID: <38A4BF04.C9629B7B@clark.net>
To: "Charles F. Munat" <charles@munat.com>
CC: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, Cynthia Waddell <cynthia.waddell@ci.sj.ca.us>
Hi Charles,

One portion of the ada which might well be appliable here in a way is
the portion dealing with reasonable accommodation it would apply in
this way.  if you put up a web site and your web site can be used in
certain ways that are accessible meaning that the information is
available to in ways that mittigate functional limitations, then the
site has passed the test.  a test of this type is clearly possible and
can be vallidated today and most sites will not pass it.  Another part
of this is to have it clearly stated and linked to on the site how the
site can best be used for optimum accessability.  For instance, if
your site by necessity is forms intensive and dynamic, you might say
with confidence that this site is accessible via use of the following
tools.  I'm not saying that this lets one off the hook, but I am
saying that if the tools are available without undue burden to the
consumer than the site is accessible and it is up to the consumer to
do their part.  This goes back to reasonable accomodation.  if for
instance, information is provided in braille to a known braille user
and the braille user files a complaint because they would rather have
recorded or other media, the complaint is rejected because the
accomodation has been provided for.  If on the other hand someone who
cannot hear is provided audio as an accomodation than there is a
legitimate ground for complaint.
I hope this helps. 
Hands-On Technolog(eye)s
voice 301-949-7599
end sig.
Received on Friday, 11 February 2000 21:01:45 UTC

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