RE: Baseline capabilities

Anne,

This is true where the cost of a new computer system represents a fraction of
the cost of somebody with enough knowledge to make an old system useful. The
only thing that makes that the 80% case is the global shortage of people who
are sufficiently qualified, meaning that they tend to be taken by the highest
bidders - those who coincidentally can also afford up-to-date equipment.

In much of the world, the cost of a couple of new computers represents
several months or more in salary for someone who can set up and maintain a
network of (for example) 486 systems. When I am in Bristol, I regularly work
on such a network, using fairly up-to-date (linux) software. At home I use a
386 machine.

As a global organisation, we need to be able to support both cases (or state
explicitly why we don't). One of my reasons for including Linux systems in
the baseline set is that this is a free technology that can be successfully
run on 486 systems readily available, and there are several ree access
solutions available, including the emacspeak "audio desktop", X window
systems which can provide magnified screen systems or screen magnification
programs, and other accessibility features. (they are knowledge intensive by
comparison to commercial systems, but the financial cost is negligible or
nil, which is important where an annual salary is measured in hundreds of US
dollars.

So much for the philosophy. To what extent do the baselines we are
establishing match what people can be reasonably expected to have access
to? How do we handle the fact that for different languages the situtation can
be very different?

(Note that we are essentially determining how far back we need to provide
support, assuming that newer systems are going to be better).

Charles McCN

On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Anne Pemberton wrote:

  Lisa,
  
  	You have made a point which I agree begs the question of whether
  distributing old technology to those who need to be running the new stuff
  is helpful or not. The expense of bringing an old system up to current use
  may approach the cost of a new, up-to-date system. A few years ago the
  state of Virginia set up a program to recycle old state dept. equipment to
  the schools. Nice idea, but the stuff received was worthless and had to be
  replaced by new stuff. All the distribution did was whet the appetite of a
  few adventuresome folks, and fill up dumpsters all around the state. 
  
  I do not think that one can generalize disabled people as having a greater
  percentage of old technology than the rest of the population. For one
  thing, the distribution programs are few and far between and the
  distribution is in the dozens not the thousands. For another the recycling
  of old equipment tends to benefit the giver more than the receiver. 
  
  				Anne
  
  At 11:11 AM 10/19/00 +0200, Lisa Seeman wrote:
  >
  >First let me apologies for standing in the way of consensus, and for
  >generalizing within this email.
  >
  >It seems to me that the guidelines are intended as a generalization, for
  >people with impairments, and as a generalization, such people are often
  >unemployed or at in a lower wage bracket.
  >
  >Now in our area we have a service, were distribute old second hand computer
  >equipment, to people would benefit from it (I have about six or seven
  >keyboards cluttering up my living room, a monitor under the bed...).
  >Typically is used by people who are suffering from a condition that is
  >preventing them from attending work, can continue working from home.
  >Unfortunately all of these computers have old systems on them, win32 stuff,
  >and do  not have the memory to run the latest system - even if it is
  >available for free. Having spoken to people running similar programs in the
  >US, this situation is again, typical.
  >
  >It seems to me that we are basing our baseline capabilities around what you
  >see in well financed offices, or what well employed people have in there
  >house, but not around what is typical for the people for who the guidelines
  >are intended, who are often home based, using second hand five year old
  >systems.
  >So back to the "what 80% of people use" syndrome, is this 80% of the general
  >public, or s this 80% of our end user public. And anyway surly what these
  >guideline are about are the 20% are people too.
  >
  >L
  >
  >
  Anne L. Pemberton
  http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1
  http://www.erols.com/stevepem/Homeschooling
  apembert@crosslink.net
  Enabling Support Foundation
  http://www.enabling.org
  

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
September - November 2000: 
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Thursday, 19 October 2000 13:32:07 UTC