Re: Rating models

Phill is right that there are not clear rules in front of us for defining
disability, or impact. The question about spanish and sign language is a good
example of why. I'm not sure that the CG is the place to try to resolve the
questions, which are very complex, and I think should be worked out in the
working groups - if necessary in joint work.

Charles McCN

On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 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.
  
  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?
  
  I believe that usability is an attribute of accessibility.  Should how easy
  something is to access be taken into account when determining impact?
  Perhaps, but usability is also an attribute of everything in a software
  applications or Web site.  Even though developers seem to be always
  striving to make products "easier to use", we seem to be adding to or
  including in our own private interpretations of usability into our
  determination of "impact on accessibility".  Many draw different lines for
  where the role of "assistive technology" begins and the "main stream"
  technology ends.  Some lean with the "universal design" goal of having NO
  line and therefore push strongly when determining "impact" by assuming that
  NO assistive technology should exist.  Assistive technologies [the better
  ones] improve on the usability of accessing information.
  
  "Ease of learning" and "natural language" issues seem to be creeping into
  what some consider accessibility.  For example, I do not support the notion
  that if something is in English, and I only understand Spanish, that that
  is an accessibility issue.  If I substitute "sign language" for Spanish,
  does it now become an accessibility issue?  Our existing checkpoints define
  that something must be able to be presented in Braille, not provided in
  Braille.  We may not be as clear on "sign language".
  
  I tend to lean more with the definitions of "disability" as those dealing
  with "physical impairments".  Perhaps if we adopt a "disability" definition
  in our glossaries, we can complete the definition of accessibility [we use
  the term disability in defining accessibility] and better articulate what
  is and what is not an impact to accessibility.
  
  Could this be address by the coordination group CG?  My proposal would be
  to start with the attached definitions of disability and impairment, and
  then relate them to our existing definitions of "accessibility" in the
  guidelines and then relate them to our existing definitions on priorities.
  And then finally to be clear, we need to add to our definitions what we are
  not including.  For example, I propose to include that we are not including
  "ease of learning" nor "natural language" issues in our definition of
  "impact to accessibility" but continue to acknowledge that side benefits of
  accessibility include easier to use, easier to teach, easier to use other
  devices, and easier to translate into other natural languages.
  
  Disability:
  "any restriction or inability (resulting from an impairment) to perform an
  activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human
  being". This describes a functional limitation or activity restriction
  caused by an impairment. Disabilities are descriptions of disturbances in
  function at the level of the person.
  
  Impairment:
  "any loss or abnormality of a psychological, or anatomical structure or
  function". Impairments are disturbances at the level of the organ.
  
  [WHO] http://www.who.int/whosis/icidh/icidh.html
  
  
  Regards,
  Phill Jenkins
  
  

--
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                    http://www.w3.org/WAI
21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011,  Australia (I've moved!)

Received on Saturday, 18 December 1999 23:32:56 UTC