RE: Rating models

On Friday, December 17, 1999 10:43 AM, pjenkins@us.ibm.com 
[SMTP:pjenkins@us.ibm.com] wrote:
> I believe Jason has articulated very well the arguments for keeping the
> existing Priority rating scheme based on the criterion of impact.  I
> strongly support separating the costs and current status of technology 
from
> the priority rating.

Agreed.  Thank you Jason!

> However, I feel we need to do a better job of articulating the "criterion
> of impact to accessibility".  For example we do not distinguish between
> usability and accessibility.  We do not say when accessibility ends and
> where "ease of learning" begins.  We do not distinguish between a 
modality
> PREFERENCE and accessibility.  Perhaps our definition for priorities 
should
> include what does NOT impact accessibility?

Perhaps we should return to our discussion of defining "accessible"?

Accessible is too frequently used (by folks oriented towards learning 
disability issues) to mean comprehensible or usable.

In the mainstream, accessible to all too frequently used to merely mean 
available (either geographically or electronically).

The WCAG defines "Accessible" as:
<Q>Content is accessible when it may be used by someone with a 
disability.</Q>
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#accessible

This definition is not quite circular, but it is self-referential.  I think 
it could be improved.

I would vote for something like:

<DT>Accessible</DT>
<DD>Usable to someone with a disability, especially a severe sensory or 
physical impairment.  Accessible does not necessarily imply meaningful, 
comprehensible, nor even useful.  Accessible is a significantly higher 
standard than merely "available".</DD>

Received on Friday, 17 December 1999 12:49:09 UTC