- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:30:55 -0800
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: Heather Swayne <hswayne@microsoft.com>, WAI Cross-group list <wai-xtech@w3.org>
At 11:01 AM 3/20/2001 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >This stuff relates to the standard use in internet specifications of the >terms MUST, SHOULD, and MAY, as defined by RFC 2119 >http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt > >The point is what is the difference between "the user has no access" and "the >user effectively has no access"? There are people who can read RTF source and >find what is going on. It also raises the question of "which users" or "how many" and "what must they be using"? If you can find a case in which one person -- with multiple disabilities and unusual hardware/software -- is unable to access something, does that make it a P1? Or not? E.g., if something is accessible to blind users, and deaf users, and cognitively impaired users, and limited dexterity users -- but not to a blind, deaf, limited dexterity, cognitively-impaired user who isn't running a braille terminal and has no pointer device -- is that "inaccessible" according to P1 priorities? If something takes one click for a non-disabled user, but requires 5 clicks for a blind user, is that "impossible"? What about 10 clicks? What about 25? What about 100? What if someone doesn't have a web browser? What if someone doesn't have a web browser we -like-? --Kynn Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com> Technical Developer Liaison Reef North America Tel +1 949-567-7006 ________________________________________ ACCESSIBILITY IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL. ________________________________________ http://www.reef.com
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2001 14:29:05 UTC