- From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
- Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 12:18:13 +0000
- To: sharper@cs.man.ac.uk
- CC: giorgio brajnik <brajnik@uniud.it>, Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>, Yeliz Yesilada <yyeliz@metu.edu.tr>, Peter Thiessen <thiessenp@gmail.com>, Simon Harper <simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk>, RDWG <public-wai-rd@w3.org>
sharper@cs.man.ac.uk wrote: [...] > I think accessibility is much bigger than disability alone and is not > confined to the WHO definition of disability? Further, the WHO definition > is written with quite open definitions but all in the implicit context of > impairment - for instance there are plenty of 'activity limitations' which > can occur which would not be considered to be a disability. Yes, it is also worth noting that a 'happy by product' of serving the needs of PwD is that we reduce barriers for many, many other users who don't have disabilities. _However_ the very act of explicitly designing for extremes ensures that the product/service/website etc will work for users of AT _and_ these other groups. Hence the focus on PwD is important IMO. Cheers Josh
Received on Saturday, 10 March 2012 12:18:50 UTC