- From: Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:21:51 -0400
- To: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>
- CC: jan.richards@utoronto.ca, vtsaran@yahoo-inc.com, hsivonen@iki.fi, public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org, singer@apple.com
T.V. Raman wrote:
> This type of system should always be designed based on
> "capabilities" -- and *not* based on *dis*abilities.
>
Correct, but I would reword this slightly, in the context of the IMS
accessibility specifications that Jan referenced
(http://www.imsglobal.org/accessibility/).
"This type of system should always be designed based on "*preferences*"
-- and *not* on *dis*abilities".
The access-for-all IMS specs were developed *not* as a user "profile",
but as user "preferences" and content "descriptions". And, that was
expressly done to avoid defining a user's abilities. For example, a
user declares they prefer large fonts. That could mean they have poor
vision. Or, it could mean they intend to display the content on a
screen in a lecture hall where larger print is needed for the seats in
the back. The inference from preferences to abilities is not a sound one.
If capabilities come into play here anywhere, it is with respect to the
content. For example, a video could be described as caption "capable".
--
;;;;joseph
'This is not war -- this is pest control!'
- "Doomsday", Dalek Leader -
Received on Friday, 12 September 2008 16:25:03 UTC