W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: Accessibility definition - rationale

From: <Andrew.Arch@visionaustralia.org.au>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:53:14 +1100
To: "Sailesh Panchang" <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF8BE99D9A.0456B471-ONCA256CD7.000A4A99@domino.bigpond.com>


Sailesh,

Your points 5, 6 & 7 below are well made.

Andrew




                                                                                                                                
                      "Sailesh                                                                                                  
                      Panchang"                 To:      <w3c-wai-eo@w3org>                                                    
                      <sailesh.panchang         cc:                                                                             
                      @deque.com>               Subject: Accessibility definition - rationale                                   
                      Sent by:                                                                                                  
                      w3c-wai-eo-reques                                                                                         
                      t@w3.org                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
                      21-02-03 02:06                                                                                            
                      Please respond to                                                                                         
                      "Sailesh                                                                                                  
                      Panchang"                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                




Hello All,
Comments for consideration:
1. Inaccessible websites  excludes PWD and is regarded as discriminatory.
So concept of "equivalent facilitation" or offering the same functionality
to PWD as for non-PWD is an important dimensionm that the definition should
bring out.
The draft I sent a couple of days ago includes this.
 <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
/>
2. An earlier or perhaps the first draft had an important concept:
"         * and that works with technologies that some people with
disabilities use"
I think this is what the term "robust" conveys. Hence this concept should
not   be dropped from the definition. The draft I sent brings it back.

3. The Understandability: This applies to language; plus  use of simple and
short sentences to the extent possible. But ability to understand structure
of Web page (frames, tables, forms, link names etc) is important too and
helps in navigability and operability. So I have brought it to the top of
the list. Admittedly, there may be no definite objective measure for
understandability.

4. It is necessary that the definition clearly  distinguishes   between
content accessibility and authoring tools accessibility. The former is of
greater relevance to most people as accessibility of authoring tools
impacts only those inclined on development.
At the present time this distinction is kind of intertwined and does not
come out separately. In the definition discussed on Feb 14,  the phrase
"use for surfing the Web or to build websites"  describes computer access
technologies used by  some PWD and does not really bring out that
accessibility of authoring tools is relevant to Web acccessibility.

5. The fact that accessibility is a legal requirement in some countries
really has no place in a definition slide, was recognized and dropped.
Similarly, that accessibility also benefits others is not important. In
this slide we are not trying to sell accessibility or explain all benefits
but just define it.

6. I bounced the opening sentence of the definition we discussed on Feb-14
with friends (lay people in accessibility) : the "accessible to all"
phrase. They objected  to use of a term that we are trying to define. One
said that statement does not add a whole lot of value and is almost like
saying:
"Web accessibility, well means an accessible Web!"

7. It was suggested that   we avoid jargon like "assistive technology" or
"functionality" from the first slide. I object to use of HTML or CSS orSMIL
etc on the same grounds in the opening slide. In fact  this is relevant in
a "how to achieve accessibility" slide than in a definition slide, which
view was accepted last Friday. So I suggest we drop that line.
I believe that the definition I sent earlier this week  might work out with
some tweeking.
Thanks for your time.


Sailesh Panchang
Senior Accessibility Engineer
Deque Systems Inc
11752, Valley Ridge Circle, Fairfax, VA 22033
Tel: 703-218-8018
Fax: 703-218-5047
E-mail: sailesh.panchang@deque.com
* Look up <http://www.deque.com> *
Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 01:57:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:55:50 UTC