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

RE: Accessibility definition, was focus

From: Access Systems <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:57:30 -0400 (EDT)
To: David.Pawson@rnib.org.uk
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0406100851040.3697@smart.net>

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 David.Pawson@rnib.org.uk wrote:

> I agree that legal requirements impact accessibility generation, but should
> they be a part of its definition?
> Same with costs. Given sufficient spend, we could all write accessible
> content.
> Special needs. Are these more related to requirements or understanding than
> defining accessibility?

how do you define "Special needs" (I HATE THAT TERM) they may or may not
be related to defining accessibility depending on how used, very confusing
term to the general public
> Scalability? What impact does scale have on accessibility, as far as
> definition goes?
> I'd say unrelated.

probably unrelated
> Device independence in general may aid accessibility, does it help define
> it?

part of the code.  the accessibility must be cross platform and software
> Standards in general aid accessibility but do they help define it?

the code defines what is accessible.
> That leaves usability under a heading of total width, 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?

this has probably caused the most grief,  the NFB in the USA has been the
driving force (at least vocally) on accessibility (in computer software),
since they represent  visually impaired users they tend to only really be
concerned with their members and others get lost in the din.

> Perhaps shades of grey are called for in working towards the universal goal?
> How
> about segmenting or scaling such that content might be defined as accessible
> for
> a majority of this group and that group, but the author has not addressed
> the other group.
> Does that help? It might help understanding.

I think segmenting the groups would just pit one against the other and
software/programmers might just cherry pick those it is convienent for
them to accomodate and ignore the rest, and have an "out"

> 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.
> summary.
> Who is your audience for this definition?
> What media are you addressing?
> How do you want the definition to be used? By authors? By bean counters? By
> publishers?
> I seem to be asking more questions than giving answers.

sometimes defining the questions leads to better answers


CONFIGURE YOUR E-MAIL TO SEND TEXT ONLY, see http://expita.com/nomime.html

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve Neither liberty nor safety",    Benjamin Franklin
-   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
   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
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2004 08:55:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:28 UTC