W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: Accessibility definition, was focus

From: Kai Hendry <hendry@cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:41:59 +0300
To: David.Pawson@rnib.org.uk
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040610094155.GA18630@cs.helsinki.fi>

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 08:31:54AM +0100, David.Pawson@rnib.org.uk wrote:
> I agree that legal requirements impact accessibility generation, but should
> they be a part of its definition?

Maybe not its definition. Perhaps its scope.

> Special needs. Are these more related to requirements or understanding than
> defining accessibility?

Perhaps.

> Scalability? What impact does scale have on accessibility, as far as
> definition goes?
> I'd say unrelated.

Text has to scale from a desktop to a mobile device for example.
Otherwise it isn't accessible.

> Device independence in general may aid accessibility, does it help define
> it?
> Standards in general aid accessibility but do they help define it? 

Those are good points.

> That leaves usability under a heading of total width, Universal
> Accessibility.

Eh? I don't understand. 

Usability + Accessibility = Universal Accessibility?

> Usable by whom? Does a definition have to relate to a given audience? E.g. I
> design a piece of content with sighted and blind people in mind. I forget /
> ignore
> other disabilities. Is that accessible? Most authors design content to be
> accessible
> to the audience they expect or seek. Mostly that ignores other audiences.
> Which part
> of this helps to define accessibility as you mean it?

Well that is one of the problems I feel with "accessibility". 

It makes authors think they should target content. I would like authors
to write simple well XHTML web pages that can be mangled by the user
agent for the user's needs. I am probably going back to the "write once
for all" philosophy.

> Device independence helps, though for a definition, or to aid understanding
> I'd suggest
> that *why* device independence is important is key. Reading maps with a
> mouse is great
> for groups A B and C. For those using other access devices the maps are
> inaccessible. 
>   Consideration for alternative input and output devices need to be
> addressed, or something
> similar might address the issue of web accessibility. You don't say which
> media you're
> addressing so I won't go there.

I hope you don't expect authors to cater for particular devices. Once
again a author should write "accessible" content, and rely on the
device's user agent to cater for alternative input and output.

> summary.
> Who is your audience for this definition?

Authors.

> What media are you addressing?

The Web.

Maybe I am trying to get at here that there should be clearer
distinction between authors and user agents responsibility.

I mean who has the disability? The user agent, the device, the
technology, the author or the user nowadays? :)
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2004 05:42:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:33 UTC