- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:51:57 -0700
- To: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@whatuwant.net>, "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <charles@w3.org>, Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Cc: "'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 05:52 PM 10/13/00 -0700, Cynthia Shelly wrote:
>I expect this to be controversial, so I'll duck now
Describing universal design as "one size fits all" might be controversial.
It's not as if we were using anthropometry to decide chair dimensions but
"I'm not convinced that it should be a goal for each version to be broadly
accessible" somehow is somewhat fly-in-the-face to what at least one old
person thinks is our aim.
To show that there is a "version" that isn't "broadly accessible" that
wouldn't benefit all of us by being made so would actually be an
interesting exercise because it might find holes in our contentions. I
advocate that "broad accessibility" is where it's at. To encourage creation
of materials that doesn't qualify seems counter-productive.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Saturday, 14 October 2000 11:52:57 UTC