- From: Marja-Riitta Koivunen <marja@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:19:49 -0400
- To: love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough), 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 08:51 AM 10/14/2000 -0700, William Loughborough wrote: >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. I thought that our universal design was customizable design, where we provide enough information and alternatives so that users can easily select what they need. So it is more like an adjustable chair. Marja >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 12:24:25 UTC