- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 16:36:12 -0500 (EST)
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
- cc: love26@gorge.net, au <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
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. Cheers 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 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 16:36:16 UTC