Fwd: Recent developments (DC-ACCESSIBILITY)

>Date:         Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:20:24 +1000
>Reply-To: DCMI Accessibility Group <DC-ACCESSIBILITY@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
>Sender: DCMI Accessibility Group <DC-ACCESSIBILITY@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
>From: Liddy Nevile <liddy@SUNRISERESEARCH.ORG>
>Subject: Recent developments
>To: DC-ACCESSIBILITY@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>
>The Usage Board has been working and has decided to think more about
>the new element we sought.
>
>In the meantime, we have also had some time to do re-thinking. The
>work has moved on into several other fora including as a proposal for
>an ISO standard. Please see the revised webpage at http:// 
>dublincore.org/groups/access/
>
>It seems that 'accessibility' as a term is often a problem for people
>as either it is tricky because it actually discriminates against
>people with disabilities, by single-ing them out for pro-active
>attention or because sometimes people are afraid of getting involved
>in accessibility because those of us who work here all the time are
>so committed, we often don't let people air their views in calm and
>attentive ways.
>
>I am proposing that we form a new working group called 'adaptability'
>that includes 'accessibility' but is also more obviously relevant to
>device independence and mobility. I can imagine telephone companies,
>and others interested in Web mobility, being interested in this
>development.
>
>I have asked a number of people about this and have so far received
>nothing but positive support. I'd like to hear from many more about
>what they think of this change. Please don't feel nervous if you
>disagree.
>
>Some have suggested it is great because now they can talk to other
>types of people within their institutions, as adaptability is not
>only the concern of disability units but includes others from many
>other units. many people have reported frustration with their efforts
>and hope this might provide an opportunity for a fresh start.
>
>It was proposed by me because I attended a mobile Web workshop and
>found that people at that workshop had not really thought about what
>had already been done by the accessibility community. It was what
>they needed but they did not know to look to that community.
>"Adaptability' is not an established term but the term accessibility
>was found, particularly by the usage board, to be a muddling term in
>the metadata context because so many people not involved in
>accessibility think of it as relevant to access to resources, not the
>accessibility of resources to which they have access.
>
>Liddy

Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2005 13:38:10 UTC