- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 20:01:35 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
- cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Well, let's look for a middle road then. The guidelines are written in terms of requirements to meet functional limitations - for example being unable to see hear an audio file, or to process an applet. So at the guideline-writing end of the process we need to understand what that requirement is. But you are right that the way to understand that is to understand what kinds of disability people have, and how that affects them. (Why that is only part of the puzzle is that the requirements we end up with are determined by a combination of what people can do and what assistive technologies can do.) So I am going to start a new thread from this one talking about functional requirements, and carry this one on with different types of disabilities. For my involvement, this one will be very general -i don't have a lot of knowledge in the area. So let me throw in a handful of buzzwords I have heard and ask people to try and add meaning to them (Note that interpretations of these things can vary widely. For example the interpretation of Attention Deficit Disorder / Hyperactivity within Autralian psychiatric/medical/educational circles is a hotly debated topic. But the requirements that result may be less affected than the requirements of the people debating them). Note that I am going to approach this not just from a cognitive disability perspective, but from a general perspective of disabilities that make reading difficult (potentially to the point of being impossible). Dyslexia Aphasia Autism Attention Deficit Disorder Short-term Memory loss Learning disability Downs Syndrome Acquired Brain Injury Deafness (not a cognitive disability as such, but can lead to difficulties in understanding written/oral languages in the same way that blindness can create difficulties in understanding graphics). chaals On Tue, 4 Apr 2000, Kynn Bartlett wrote: At 03:47 PM 4/4/2000 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >Humnour me for a moment, please *grin*. I always humor you, Chaals! >Actually, what we are told is that >there are some people who cannot read text easily, but for whom screenreaders >are indeed helpful. There are other people who not only cannot easily read >text, but in fact cannot understand complex written OR oral language, and >screen readers will not be particularly helpful. Riiiiight, which is why identifing users must come before identifying accessibility hurdles. The same hurdle may be solved in different ways for different people -- for example, a solution for a deaf user may not be the same as a solution for a deaf-blind user! >Among the latter will be >people who are deaf, and for whom any written or spokemn language is a second >language. (Or is this an i18n problem... Actually I believe it is a >disability problem, but illustrates the deeply related nature of the two >areas). Agreed. But I think it's important that we -do- identify users with CDs distinctly before proceeding, so we know that we are indeed meeting their needs. Jonathan and Anne seem to be indicating that we have not, and that concerns me. So, humor -me- for a while, as I try to figure out who exactly we are talking about when we talk about CD users.
Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2000 20:01:42 UTC