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

RE: Rockville, MD- Seeking low vision users for testing federal w ebsite

From: Nissen, Dan E <Dan.Nissen@UNISYS.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 07:07:34 -0600
Message-ID: <FC86023944FB1F48943B3B1CED11E0FCDABBE9@USRV-EXCH2.na.uis.unisys.com>
To: WAI-IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

I see a whole lot of criticism of what is a pretty minimal description of a
part of an activity that is definitely going to be better than not doing it.
The stick seems to be all some of you know how to do.  How about the carrot
and see if we can encourage people to start down this road without setting a
standard none of us can meet?  No way all the discussed environments need to
be tested if the AT follows the standards and the web site is also designed
to the standards.  

The expectations are way up there and the criticism is pretty quick on the

Best regards,

-----Original Message-----
From: David Poehlman [mailto:poehlman1@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 6:18 AM
To: Joe Clark; WAI-IG
Subject: Re: Rockville, MD- Seeking low vision users for testing federal

any testing which reaches the rong conconclusions and passes them off as
correct is bad.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Clark" <joeclark@joeclark.org>
To: "WAI-IG" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: Rockville, MD- Seeking low vision users for testing federal

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

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


  Joe Clark  |  joeclark@joeclark.org
  Author, _Building Accessible Websites_
  <http://joeclark.org/access/> | <http://joeclark.org/book/>
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2002 08:08:10 UTC

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