- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 23:32:55 -0500 (EST)
- To: pjenkins@us.ibm.com
- cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, w3c-wai-cg@w3.org
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