re: skill level

In fact we are saying "can be used by people regardless of disability". This
has important bearing on the skill level discussion, since we do not require
that a tool be obviously useful to anyone who picks it up.

As an example, consider an image editor. It needs to be accesible to a blind
user, by allowing them to edit properties of the image. But if it provides
several different methods of colour selection (eg Pantone, RGB, CYKM) like
some advanced (and even some not so advanced) tools, then it needs to explain
how to use the methods, but doesn't need to explain what the difference
between RGB and Pantone slection is - that is assumed in the skill levfel of
the user. (Of course if they do explain it anyway it is helpful, and the
explanation would need to be accessible...)

I'm not sure if that is a good example (or even if CYKM is the right
collection of letters). Anyone got a better one? I think it would make an
intersting expansion of the wording in the priorities section of the
techniques document.


Charles McCN

On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

  At 11:54 AM 11/30/1999 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
  >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).
  So then we're not really saying "can be used by PWD", we're saying
  "can be used by *all* PWD", right?  Or are we not saying that at all
  and are instead saying something different?
  (Just confirming.)
  Kynn Bartlett                          
  President, HTML Writers Guild          
  AWARE Center Director                

--Charles McCathieNevile  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative          
21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011,  Australia (I've moved!)

Received on Tuesday, 30 November 1999 16:36:16 UTC