- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 08:19:42 -0500
- To: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
- Cc: Liam McGee <liam.mcgee@communis.co.uk>, EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Hi Liam and Shawn, Liam wrote: >> Suggest: >> >> "The web should be accessible to everyone, including people with >> different levels of vision or hearing, different ranges of movement, >> different levels of literacy or cognitive function, different >> software, hardware or internet connection speeds. Shawn wrote: > SLH: We have decide to keep "accessibility" limited to related to > disability. While I'm OK with having the first sentence broader > (since it doesn't include "accessibility"), it seems it muddies the > terminology to have software, hardware, and connection in this > sentence that starts with accessible. I agree with Shawn. Adding the words "different software, hardware or internet connection speeds" would be universality not accessibility. It dilutes the message of what web accessibility is about. Accessibility is about ensuring that people with disabilities do not encounter barriers through things that they cannot readily change. The danger of distorting the meaning of web accessibility is that discussions can quickly degenerate to pandering to people’s whims, rather than real issues that affect people with disabilities. We all understand the importance of universality to reach and serve the widest possible audience; that is the goal - a goal that I whole heatedly support, and while accessibility is an important part of reaching the goal of universality, accessibility is by far the most important aspect of universality. Also the word "should" is normative. Is this a normative or informative document? >> The web radically changes the nature of disability - it removes >> barriers to communication and interaction. However, badly written >> web pages or technologies re-introduce these barriers. > > *EOWG*: please comment on above paragraph. It would be more honest to say that "The web has the potential to radically change the nature of disability if barriers are not introduced". As it stands today, the web may or may not change the nature of disability. >> The W3C Web Accessibility Initiative works to help legislators, >> programmers, developers, managers and site owners prevent such >> barriers reappearing." > > *EOWG*: please comment on above paragraph. Suggest adding "Specification editors and working groups". >> "Why: The Case for Web Accessibility ... [whole section]" >> >> Suggest: >> >> "Why make a web site accessible? > > SLH: Does posing this as a question suggest that there is any > question -- you know what I mean? Yes. In addition, if it is asked, people will pose the opposite question. Examples from HTML5... Canvas: http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/AddedElementCanvas#head-e376f307aa0d8348218514f256fa993421a3969d http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/AddedElementCanvas#head-c791faf6ba3a05eaa75bfc7c163bc026905f10ff table summary: http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SummaryForTABLE#head-222af24a2b1dcdc3afe5e3036551b70f99cf232c http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SummaryForTABLE#head-222af24a2b1dcdc3afe5e3036551b70f99cf232c alt: http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueAltAttribute#head-2d23e2e37f68a6c480d88e0591a44b367ebe5dbb http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueAltAttribute#head-897a0b632f584524f3904a0aa20adf57df210741 table headers: http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueTableHeaders#head-f46084423854a83f7a08bd92cfcf691a11d23c91 http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueTableHeaders#head-28fdb1943d19f60750025e507ff376915cfc4e39 >> The web must provide equal access and equal opportunity to people >> with diverse abilities. Article 9 of the UN Convention on the >> Rights of Persons with Disabilities recognizes _web accessibility >> as a basic human right_. > > *EOWG* - how do you think readers will react to "The web must provide > equal access and equal opportunity to people with diverse abilities." Again is this a normative or informative document? Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2009 13:21:38 UTC