- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 14:54:16 -0500 (EST)
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
- cc: love26@gorge.net, au <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
No, you haven't met the goal. You fail 7.1 by failing to make your tool generaly accessible (probably by a failure to use standard components and APIs, which would be a way of stopping the braille from working). CHarles McCN On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Kynn Bartlett wrote: At 08:17 AM 11/30/1999 , William Loughborough wrote: >So long as "skill level" is not confused with "ability level" I have no >problem with what I've been seeing. It is vital to use our >recommendations in an attempt to make *any* software that is used as a >tool to publish materials on the Web, _including such things as word >processors with a "save to Web" feature_, be made to: produce output >that conforms to WCAG; be tools that are accessible to (usable by) PWDs. >The latter point is of *MAJOR* importance inasmuch as the WWW is the >vehicle for attaining inclusion. Dumb question, if I'm someone who works extensively in the field of software for users who are visually impaired, and I make a special purpose authoring tool for someone who can't see -- which relies on extensive aural cues (and doesn't work that well with a braille terminal) -- have I met your goal or not met your goal? It can be used by (some) PWDs, but not all PWDs; is it therefore an invalid tool according to our ATAG? I forget, did we answer this? If so, feel free to refer me back to the archives or summarize an answer, we have enough stuff to worry about at present if this has been covered. -- Kynn Bartlett mailto:kynn@hwg.org President, HTML Writers Guild http://www.hwg.org/ AWARE Center Director http://aware.hwg.org/ --Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI 21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011, Australia (I've moved!)
Received on Tuesday, 30 November 1999 14:54:24 UTC