- From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 09:41:59 -0400
- To: public-html@w3.org, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, wai-xtech@w3.org
lachlan wrote, quote: This is why we should avoid conflating accessibility issues with technological barriers, i18n issues, and whatever else. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, and it doesn't help to pretend that one can be developed. unquote could you clarify precisely what you mean? the purpose of HTMLx is to ensure that the web is usable for everyone -- from someone with a very slow connection and a text-browser to someone who cannot see or use their hands to interact with a computer... accessibility has always been the canary in the W3C coalmine -- what you and others fail to grasp is that there IS cross-over between internationalization issues and interoperability issues and general usability; no one is looking for a one-size-fits-all solution, as that runs counter to the whole concept of accessibility, which is in the eye, ear, fingertip, or whatever else is available to the user... accessibility issues ARE technical issues -- that's why the Web Accessibility Initiative exists -- to ensure that there are multiple solutions AVAILABLE to the user in order to fit the users' needs; no one is pretending to have a one-size-fits all solution, but if a solution can provide for better accessiblity, better usability, better internationalization, and is platform neutral, why should it not fall under the HTML WG's purview -- yes, we as a working group can't fix flash, but there are those working with it's developers on making it more accessible, but in the interim, the fact remains that there is a need for equivalent alternative content, which it is this WG's responsibility to provide the mechanisms for embedding and exposing equivalent alternatives, INCLUDING the option to have a side-by-side rendering of the image AND it's description... no, one size never fits all, but we are not attempting to fix the world, just the world wide web, and in order to do so, we need to have alternative mechanisms with multiple methods of exposition, which are tailorable, and which provide equal functionality for anyone anywhere... it's not an either/or proposition -- accessibility, internationalization, and interoperability MUST be considered at EVERY stage of the development process, in order to avoid awkward after-the-fact semi-solutions that merely pass the buck from the web-based technology to a third-party assisstive technology; there is nothing magical about speech synthesis, screen magnification or speech input -- they are all equally valid means of interacting with a web application, and as such, must be addressed, and taken into consideration during all our deliberations... that is why so many of us who have worked predominantly in the accessibility field, dealing with gaping perceptual black holes and other barriers erected by others, are committed to ensuring that one's web experience is NOT predicated on proprietary plugins -- if a functionality exists which is currently only addressed by a proprietary application or plugin, then it IS the purview of the HTML WG to ensure that an individual's experience of the web not be compromised by the use of third-party plugins WITHOUT the markup language which is used to embed them providing a native fallback mechanism to provide equal functionality and content... i also take issue with your example of downloading movie trailers -- that trivializes the issue -- those of us with disabilities are trying to communicate with one another, with the wider world, make a living, and get and hold a job, all of which is predicated upon the use of standards that promote accessibility, internationalization, and interoperability... compared to that, watching a movie trailer downloaded from the web exposes your argument as the logical straw man that it is... what puzzles me is why there is such a fear of accessibility issues; the question is moot -- the W3C has made a commitment to making the web accessible to all, regardless of the reasons why it is not currently accessible to all, through the establishment of the Web Accessibility Initiative, just as it has committed itself to the pursuit of internationalization and quality assurance... if accessibility is to be achieved, it must be considered from the very outset, and continually serve as a guiding principle, for what is accessibility other than a sub-set (or super-set) of usability? the model of finding solutions after the fact has failed repeatedly in the past; the WAI was established PRECISELY to avoid this vicious developmental cycle which is more of a whirlpool to those caught inside it... gregory. -------------------------------------------------------------- BIGOT, n. One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain. -- Ambrose Bierce -------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory J. Rosmaita: oedipus@hicom.net Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/ Oedipus' Online Complex: http://my.opera.com/oedipus/ United Blind Advocates for Talking Signs: http://ubats.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 13:43:08 UTC