RE: ERT Action Item: Use Case Scenarios for EARL

 

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charles@sidar.org] 
> Enviado el: lunes, 04 de abril de 2005 17:10
> Para: Carlos Iglesias; Giorgio Brajnik; shadi@w3.org
> CC: public-wai-ert@w3.org
> Asunto: Re: ERT Action Item: Use Case Scenarios for EARL
> 
> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 22:37:22 +1000, Carlos Iglesias 
> <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org> wrote:
> 
> > 2 - I'm sure this is something that an accessibility expert or an 
> > accessibility expert will loves, but I'm a little bit 
> hesitate about 
> > the rest of the users. I know from experience that common 
> users, even 
> > project managers, usually want just a measure (a mark) or a 
> > certificate of the accessibility, they don't care about the details 
> > because they don't know anything about web accessibility. I 
> know, it's a pity but...
> 
> People who have a particulr set of accessibility needs are 
> more likely even than project managers to be more interested 
> in somthing that meets their needs than in a simple mark. For 
> example many people with cognitive disabilities might prefer 
> something that conforms to a range of checkpoints from WCAG 1 
> of different priorities to something that conforms to level 
> double-A but does not meet any triple-A checkpoints. A simple 
> tool that can tell them if a page claims to meet their needs 
> is likely to be well-appreciated by these users.

Of course, but going on with the same example, the question is what this
people with cognitive disabilities might prefer:

A - Just a claim that says "This page is accesible for people with
cognitive disabilities".

B - Detailed info about the WCAG checkpoints the page conforms.


IMO the answer is A. Do you think that most of the people with
disabilities know the WCAG?

Regards,

CI.

Received on Monday, 4 April 2005 16:36:31 UTC