RE: Definition of Accessibility Problem

Very good point, Jutta. My suggestion distorted the previous definition. In
the meantime, I prefer Jan's proposal in his mail of 8. Feb. 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JanMar/0058.html)
where he breaks it into a tool problem and a content problem. My vote goes
to his 2 definitions!

regards, Karen

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Jutta Treviranus
Sent: 9. februar 2004 20:18
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Subject: Re: Definition of Accessibility Problem



I think this definition refers more to the person having the problem 
than the problem that prevents access. When I look through the 
document we use the term not in the sense: "I'm having an 
accessibility problem with this content," but more in the sense, " 
this is a problem that is preventing access."

Jutta

>Continuing the definition mulling from the AUWG Teleconference Minutes (Feb
>2, 2004)
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JanMar/0051.html
>
>ACCESSIBILITY PROBLEM:
>
>We have:
>
>Inaccessible Web content or authoring tools cannot be used by some people
>with disabilities. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 [ WCAG20]
>describes how to create accessible Web content.
>
>I propose:
>
>The inability to access web content or authoring tools, especially by
people
>with a disability. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]
and
>2.0 [WCAG20] describe the requirements for making web content accessible.
>
>*access* is meant to be a link (perhaps??) to the definition for access at
>http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/Glossary/printable.html#A, which is
>"To interact with a system entity in order to manipulate, use, gain
>knowledge of, and/or obtain a representation of some or all of a system
>entity's resources." And maybe the "especially by people with a disability"
>can be dropped? It really doesn't matter who you are - if you can't get at
>the info you need, you've got an accessibility problem.
>
>I was a bit unsure about the longevity of this definition with links to
WCAG
>1.0 and 2.0. We only have a [REF] to the 2.0 guidelines. 1.0 is the TR.
>Perhaps the link could be to the WCAG home page and say "The Web Content
>Accessibility Guidelines Working Group has guidelines that describe..." and
>sneak around the exact version that way?
>
>Comments?? Jutta? Anyone?
>
>regards, Karen Mardahl


--

Received on Monday, 9 February 2004 15:07:09 UTC