W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: the official definition [of web accessibility] from the W3C is wrong

From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 09:03:15 -0600
To: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF4E3B6862.74B62700-ON86257DE4.0050D634-86257DE4.0052B3BF@us.ibm.com>
Sure.  Absolutely.

I've been thinking that way and promoting that vision since the 'perfect 
storm' of mobile and situational impairments began with the advent of the 
iPhone 3. 

However, the definition has. to. include. disability, 
        has to be 'rooted' in fundamental enablement, 
        disability has to be 'core'
        often (always?) has to be 'start' with disability
        one can't test in disability support

People with disabilities, often (ever?) don't have the choice to move to 
where the glare prevents one from seeing the screen, 
        doesn't have the choice to pull over and text instead of driving, 
        doesn't have the choice to buy new earbuds when one can't hear the 
        etc. etc.

I have too many stories and history of where something that was initially 
accessible got "broken" when it went 'main-stream' (a.k.a. for everyone). 

For example, early 1990's versions of voice command and control were 
fundamentally developed and accepted by users who had no limbs or fine 
motor control to be able to even use a mouse.  It enabled them to not have 
to use a mouth stick, even with slightly better than 50% recognition 
rates.  Then it went main stream with voice dictation, IBM ViaVoice, etc. 
and the only way to install and get started with it REQUIRED a mouse. ugh. 
 Yes it got fixed, but could you imagine not being able to use your smart 
phone or laptop for months?
Another example; early versions of BIOS settings couldn't be re-enabled 
(without a mouse) if/when you disabled the Mouse setting . . yeah you 
could re-boot, but what a pain.

So the definition of accessibility has. to. be. inclusive of. disability. 
Phill Jenkins, 
IBM Accessibility

From:   Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
To:     WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Date:   02/06/2015 05:25 AM
Subject:        the official definition [of web accessibility] from the 
W3C is wrong

discussion starter:

"We need to change the way we talk about accessibility. Most people are 
taught that ?web accessibility means that people with disabilities can use 
the Web?? the official definition from the W3C. This is wrong. Web 
accessibility means that people can use the web."

source: Reframing Accessibility for the Web



Received on Friday, 6 February 2015 15:03:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:54 UTC