W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Creating an accessible Table of Contents

From: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 14:19:37 -0800
To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF97D95097.C0C0F0D7-ON88257B21.007A89EA-88257B21.007AA5CB@ca.ibm.com>
The curb example is an interesting analogy, Bob, and indicative of a 
larger issue, that has been hinted at here.
In my home town, virtually every sidewalk in town has cutouts, but the new 
motorized scooters many elderly folks (and others) are using nowadays have 
such a low clearance on their wheel base that they were either bottoming 
out on the slope or were stopped by the curb lip, or both. Now, I would 
argue that at some point decisions to adopt technology that don't support 
certain standards  become a buyer's own problem and responsibility. 
There are obviously parallels to what happens if someone with an older or 
decidedly non-mainstream OS expects to be able to have full access to what 
they want on the web. At some point, most people would say that a 
technology becomes so obscure or dated that expecting current practices to 
accommodate it is unreasonable. I'm not suggesting this is the case with 
PDF docs on a Mac OS. But I am suggesting that universal access likely 
means something different to everyone, and few of us would say it is a 
synonym for "limitless access."

As a postscript, the city is now spending a lot of money grinding down the 
curb lips and cut-out angles to allow these scooters to work. Is it best 
use of funds? I don't know, but there are certainly other services and 
barriers to PwD that aren't being addressed at the same time.

Michael Gower

From:   accessys@smart.net
To:     Olaf Drümmer <olaf@druemmer.com>, 
Cc:     "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, Ramón Corominas 
<listas@ramoncorominas.com>, Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
Date:   03/01/2013 01:01 PM
Subject:        Re: Creating an accessible Table of Contents

example,  there are curbs (kerbs) all over the world, does one blame the 
builder or the one who maintains them or rebuilds them. a person in a 
wheelchair usually doesn't care if the curb cut is concrete or Asphalt or 
wood just as long as it is usable. and usable by all wheelchairs. what if 
a curb cut were built with a wheel spacing that only works with a single 
brand of wheelchairs. does that make sense??

same concept, don't care what is used to make it accessible as long as it 
is accessible to all platforms. and yes it is a process, making old stuff 
accessible is work but we should try to find easier ways, making 
something new inaccessible, there is no excuse.


On Fri, 1 Mar 2013, [iso-8859-1] Olaf Drümmer wrote:

> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 21:44:59 +0100
> From: "[iso-8859-1] Olaf Drümmer" <olaf@druemmer.com>
> To: accessys@smart.net, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Cc: "[iso-8859-1] Olaf Drümmer" <olaf@druemmer.com>,
>     "[iso-8859-1] Ramón Corominas" <listas@ramoncorominas.com>,
>     Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: Creating an accessible Table of Contents
> Resent-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 20:46:10 +0000
> Resent-From: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> So - whom to blame?
> Blame PDF for the fact that documents on paper exist?
> Do you realize that it is because of technology that it becomes feasible 
in the first place to make paper more accessible than it used to be 
virtually  more or less forever before?
> I agree to the goal - move in a direction where access becomes 
universal, but to blame PDF (or any other format or technology for that 
purpose) that paper documents exist (which by definition are not, and 
never have been, accessible to certain groups of users) is ... well ... 
> Next you ask to destroy all printing presses, laser and inkjet printers 
and photocopying machines, because they even create more documents in an 
accessible format (that is, on paper)?
> Paper is also bad, isn't it?
> Olaf
> Am 1 Mar 2013 um 20:45 schrieb accessys@smart.net:
>> scanned paper documents without tags or other access features to allow 
them to be used by all is missing the goal.  I am not saying anything is 
better than the other as long as they can be used by all.
>> universal access is the goal.
>> Bob
>> On Fri, 1 Mar 2013, [iso-8859-1] Olaf Drümmer wrote:
>>> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:33:30 +0100
>>> From: "[iso-8859-1] Olaf Drümmer" <olaf@druemmer.com>
>>> To: accessys@smart.net, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>>> Cc: "[iso-8859-1] Olaf Drümmer" <olaf@druemmer.com>,
>>>    "[iso-8859-1] Ramón Corominas" <listas@ramoncorominas.com>,
>>>    Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
>>> Subject: Re: Creating an accessible Table of Contents
>>> Hi Bob,
>>> you are moving the target a bit too quickly for my taste. A few 
minutes ago you scolded PDF for being a cheap electronic print out 
mechanism, now you bring scanned PDFs into the game.
>>> So are you implying, HTML (or some other format) is a better format 
for scanned paper documents?
>>> Olaf
>>> Am 1 Mar 2013 um 18:15 schrieb accessys@smart.net:
>>>> I agree pdf has made great strides but getting archivist especially 
to tag the documents they scan is getting harderd and harder it seems
>>>> Bob
Received on Friday, 1 March 2013 22:20:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:47 UTC