W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2009

RE: accessibility supported questions

From: <Accessys@smart.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:02:58 -0500 (EST)
To: Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo <coordina@sidar.org>
cc: "'Patrick Lauke'" <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0903311401460.21128@fzneg.arg>

no that is not what I meant, the law or codes would set the baseline
and as I understand it now for e-mail that baseline is PINE and for
websites it is LYNX

both cross platform text based free software

Bob


On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, [iso-8859-1] Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo wrote:

> Hi Patrick,
>
> I agree with all the answers from Bob, Ramón, and Cheryl to this message.
>
> But also, I am concerned that you mention the concept of "baseline" because
> from my point of view, fortunately, the concept no longer appears in WCAG
> 2.0 and hope it will not return to it.
>
> If our goal is to achieve accessibility for all, we can not leave it to the
> website developers/owners to determine a "baseline."
>
>
> The only "baseline" should be equal opportunities to access, interact and
> create content.
>
> Best regards,
> Emmanuelle
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] En nombre
> de Patrick Lauke
> Enviado el: martes, 31 de marzo de 2009 16:55
> Para: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Asunto: RE: accessibility supported questions
>
> > Accessys@smart.net
>
> > the key part of at least USA law is that it cannot be considered
> > accessible or compliant if it requires a person with a disability
> > to have a specific piece of equipment or software that is not
> > required of everyone or is not provided free to everyone who needs it.
>
> Are refreshable braille displays available free for those who need them?
> Before projects like NVDA (still quite flaky), was there any freely
> available
> Screenreader for Windows, or was Windows then deemed non-compliant?
>
> The way I understand it (and this is, of course, my personal
> interpretation),
> the whole concept of accessibility-supported technologies is there to
> ensure
> that, in principle, there is at least a baseline reassurance that
> content is
> created in a way that it can be perceived/operated/used in at least a
> best-case
> scenario (user with latest technology available...latest version of JAWS
> etc for
> instance). The specific decision of how far to fall back to, though, is
> then left
> up to site developers/owners, and not mandated through WCAG itself.
>
> I could foresee that, when it comes to court cases involving sites
> claiming
> WCAG 2.0, a lot of the discussion will revolve around whether or not the
> choice
> regarding which accessibility-supported technology (baseline) was chosen
> and
> if that choice was realistic.
>
> > what about connection speeds, how fast is a minimum speed needed.
>
> Is speed an accessibility issue? If I'm on a slow connection, does that
> *prevent*
> me from accessing content, regardless of ability/disability? My feeling
> would be
> that no, it's not an accessibility (as in relating specifically to users
> with
> disabilities) issue.
>
> > everyone likes to work on the cutting edge but many people with
> disabilities
> > are on the edge of poverty and cannot afford upgrading every few
> years.
>
> Fundamentally, that's a societal issue, rather than one that should be
> addressed
> by web content accessibility guidelines as such. But, as noted above, if
> it came
> To court cases, the choice of technology will need to be weighed up
> against the
> particular audiences a site is targetting.
>
> > many people with disabilities (and others) just don't want to change,
> > they have figured out the assistive tech they have and it works for
> them,
> > so do they need the newer bells and whistles, and should we force them
> to
> > aquire these?
>
> Personally, I think that "preference" is not a strong enough case for or
> against
> technological choices. Some of my visitors may prefer to use Mosaic 1.0
> or Netscape 2.0,
> but that doesn't mean that I'm only making sites that target that lowest
> common
> denominator.
>
> All that IMHO, of course.
>
> P
> ________________________________
> Patrick H. Lauke
> Web Editor
> Enterprise & Development
> University of Salford
> Room 113, Faraday House
> Salford, Greater Manchester
> M5 4WT
> UK
>
> T +44 (0) 161 295 4779
> webmaster@salford.ac.uk
>
> www.salford.ac.uk
>
> A GREATER MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY
>
>

-
end
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
occasionally a true patriot must defend his country from its' government
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"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/MIME 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 Tuesday, 31 March 2009 19:03:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:31 GMT