Re: @title's relation to accessibility

On 9/4/07, Philip Taylor (Webmaster) <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk> wrote:
> Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
> > At 14:19 -0500 UTC, on 2007-09-03, Jon Barnett wrote:
>
> >> Remember that "accessibility" doesn't just mean "readable to blind people".
> >
> > Within the W3C space, it does. I dislike it, but I think we need to be
> > realistic about it.
>
> Does it ?  I understood it meant "accessible to people who
> do not have the ability to respond to all sensory stimuli
> in the same way as is generally accepted as 'normal'".
>

Since this is about the 3rd reply to this, I'll respond.

Please replace the words "readable to blind people" above with
"accessible to people with physical disabilities".  If you read the
rest of my original message, it's clear what I meant.  (I singled out
"blind people" as an example for all disabilities because that seems
to be the most common use case we discuss for disabilities and this
thread forked from another thread regarding aural UAs.)

Sander understood what I meant.

He also pointed out that by "accessibility", I really meant "universality".

I, too, don't like pinning down the word "accessibility" to only
situations involving physical disabilities, but I can live with just
using the word "universality" instead.

-- 
Jon Barnett

Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2007 14:31:10 UTC