- From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 01:42:18 +0200
- To: <public-html@w3.org>
[Reposted under new Subject] At 17:26 +1000 UTC, on 2007-08-03, Jason White wrote: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:09:30AM -0500, Laura Carlson wrote: [referring to <http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ProposedDesignPrinciples#head-986be62e8a275052afb853f26d1a380de7730425> and/or <http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ProposedDesignPrinciples#head-10411c5e5705d5a8d05ed64a5312dc5292082faa>, I think.] >> Because of this the access principle should be strengthen to something like: >> >> "Design features to be accessible, universal, and inclusive. Access by >> everyone regardless of disability is an essential. This does not mean >> that features should be omitted entirely if not all users can fully >> make use of them. But alternate/equivalent mechanisms must be >> provided." > > I support substituting the above for the current, ambiguous wording in the > design principles. Just a note: Given all the miscommunication due to different uses of terminology, let's try to take extreme care with that terminology, especially in something like the Design Principles. For example (especially when listed together with "accessible" and "universal") what does "inclusive" mean? (Serious question. I don't know.) There's enough confusion and disagreement already on what "accessible" means. Another is that we appear to have some agreement on "equivalent" referring to content, and "alternate" to the UI mechanism (and "fallback" to situations where the UA defaults to an equivalent that is not the author-suggested 'main' one). See also <http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/AccessibilityConsensus #head-2d72a19043f78d471af365031ec3ab94fe62d1af> -- Sander Tekelenburg The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Friday, 3 August 2007 23:51:54 UTC