W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: Rockville, MD- Seeking low vision users for testing federal website

From: Access Systems <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 23:07:55 -0500 (EST)
To: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
cc: WAI-IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0212172255001.24209-100000@smarty.smart.net>

On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Joe Clark wrote:

> 
> > As others have mentioned, this is not the right approach to testing
> > website accessibility.  At best it tests one narrowly-defined aspect
> > of accessibility
> 
> ...which nonetheless needs testing.

I don't think anyone one has said not to test, just test more 
> 
> > at worst it risks reinforcing any bad practices
> > you may have - such as authoring to browser behaviour at the expense
> > of presenting the website contents clearly
> 
> ...which you have no evidence they are doing.

authoring to browser behavior is a common error, not one that anyone has
been accused of doing. it was an example of an often discovered problem

> > Both JAWS and Window-Eyes deal with one particular disability
> 
> ...which nonetheless requires accommodation, and these are the two
> most popular ways to do it.

sure and no one has disagreed
> 
> > Both are themselves inaccessible to many users, by virtue of cost
> > and the prerequisites required to install them
> 
> ...which is irrelevant and a tiresome albatross hung around the
> necks of the accessibility "movement." By this reasoning, no
> adaptive technology should be developed if it cannot be handed out
> for free to everyone who could possibly use it.

No, but cost and the prerequisites are a significant factor, if one has
the money and the correct prerequisites then it may be the best choice,
but if you are like the vast majority of people with disability you live
below the norm and a significant majority below the poverty level.  not
even mentioning the 3rd world, which is where the vast majority of
disabled people actually live 

something designed for Jaws or Windows Eyes may not be usable by people
using non proprietary software, but something designed for Open Source or
other accessibilty solution can be used by Jaws and Windows Eyes

> If you disagree with the planned testing of actual disabled users,

sure asked them to EXPAND the testing not discarding the test

> don't participate in it. But we need more such testing, and, as I
> argue in my book, even sub-optimal testing of disabled users beats
> the heck out of none at all.

I disagree, sub-optimal testing is frequently broadcast as the diffinative
answer, check all the constant changing of eating recommendations, or the
argument over various needs for medical testing...

 if you test those who use JAWS (for example) how does this affect someone
who has an obsolete computer and can't afford to purchase a new computer
to get the new software that is needed to run this latest and greatest
solution,  accessibility is for EVERYONE not one particular solution.

  some of these proprietary software packages are fantastic, but if all
one can afford is suboptimal or less than the lastest and greatest should
they be excluded because they prefer to eat rather than upgrade

how much extra does it cost to test with a "free" or open source solution
to the problem...

Bob

   ASCII Ribbon Campaign                        accessBob                       
    NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail                   accessys@smartnospam.net       
    NO MSWord docs in e-mail                    Access Systems, engineers       
    NO attachments in e-mail,  *LINUX powered*   access is a civil right 
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged.  They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, Please notify the sender as
soon as possible. Please DO NOT READ, COPY, USE, or DISCLOSE this
communication to others and DELETE it from your computer systems.  Thanks
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2002 23:07:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:07 GMT