Re: Fwd: Accessibility, discrimination, and WCAG 2.0

Kynn,

	I am pleased to see the discussion going to some specifics. 

At 11:54 PM 10/22/00 -0700, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>>If a cognitively disabled person can identify a page with needed
>>information as "too complex for me" via e-mail or mail, the page is too
>>complex for an awful lot of people who couldn't or didn't write, and the
>>author has sorely missed his mark in judging his "audience".
>
>That's a dangerous assumption, though, don't you think?  That if one
>person is, for whatever reason, unable to understand a page -- there
>is necessarily a problem?

Kynn, the point I was making here is that it would be a fairly
high-functioning CD person who would recognize the problem and take action.
I am assuming (for what it's worth) that if one such person found a
problem, there are more people encountering the problem who should
reasonably be expected to be able to use it. 

>How would you write a guideline for this?
 
I'll think on this as we discuss it further. It's too early in the morning
for me to think in fancy words. I think the word "reasonable" will be part
of it. The "Reasonable man" is a strong legal concept that covers areas
that are hard to pinpoint. 

>What level of cognitive ability _is_ necessary to pay taxes?

In the case of retarded individuals, there is a threshold where a court
decides if the individual is competent to conduct their own business or
not. If a person is legal "incapacitated" their tax burdens and other
financial matters go to their "guardian". While such people may be given
small pieces of spending money and taken to a place to spend it,
essentially all of their business is governed as if it was business
transacted by a minor.

  In the
>private sector, what level of cognitive ability is necessary to
>use e-commerce?

The ability to make an e-transaction would be a good "bench mark" to use.
If a CD person has the legal right to make an e-commerce transaction, they
should be able to use a site. 

>When people come to our guidelines, they are going to want answers
>like this -- and won't want to simply be told "do the right thing"
>when that is undefined.  Thus it falls to us (as a working group) to
>define exactly how and when sites need to consider those with
>cognitive disabilities, because the average web designer is not an
>expert in cognitive disabilities and is going to rely upon us to
>tell them what's necessary.
>
>So -- what's necessary? :)

If the content of the site is such that a reasonable person should assume
that people of low cognitive abilities and/or low reading skills will
need/want to use the site, they should make it accessible. If the audience
for a site's information includes "the public", or "citizens", the site
will need to provide for those with the lowest capacity. If the audience is
less broad, say, those who are making a certain purchase, a determination
whether those of low capacity will be likely (or ever able) to make such a
purchase would be "reasonable".

I agree designers will be looking for help from the guidelines, and it has
long been a hope that the guidelines would address these problems. There is
not a simple solution or definition. Much depends on the individual. I'm
not sure if the best approach to to establish some kind of baseline level,
or leave it all to "reasonableness". I suspect "reasonable" will need more
definition. 

				Anne
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

Received on Monday, 23 October 2000 07:04:03 UTC