- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 12:59:12 -0700
- To: public-wai-age@w3.org
As we look forward to when our work will have matured we might want to focus on the really fast- growing demographic (those over 80) because it is fairly clear that 70 is actually no longer "old"! I recommend that at a minimum it should be 70+ because there is much movement towards that as a goal for "retirement" (rapidly becoming a quaint anachronism). Perhaps the major effect underlying the notion of age as disability is the decrement of vision and the "knee" in that curve (acuity vs. age) appears above that. Love. ------- Original Message ------- >From : Andrew Arch[mailto:andrew@w3.org] Sent : 6/2/2008 12:47:21 PM To : public-wai-age@w3.org Cc : Subject : RE: What age is old? Hello, At the most recent WAI-AGE TF teleconf [1] it was suggested that the project should possibly have a definitive position of what age a person becomes an "older person". Section 2.1 of the Literature Review [2] discussed the issue of age and section 2.4 talks about the interaction of chronological age with Attitude and Aptitude. Other factors also come into play. Should we take a position that an "older person" is 60 years (or 50 years or 70 years or ???)? Is Bailey's classification [3]: older = 60-74 years old-old = 75+ years a reasonable one to adopt? Please share your thoughts on this topic on the mailing list. Thanks, Andrew [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/27-waiage-minutes.html [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-wai-age-literature-20080514/ [3] http://www.webusability.com/article_age_classifications_8_2002.htm ----------- Andrew Arch Web Accessibility and Ageing Specialist W3C/ERCIM, Sophia Antipolis, France Ph +33 (0)4 92 38 79 46 www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/
Received on Monday, 2 June 2008 19:59:50 UTC