Re: an action item :)

Hi,

I have not surely known how to choose the examples. But I don't understand
the interest to eliminate the external factors since, if the guidelines keep
in mind to people with disability, automatically, they cover the necessities
of people that are in a handicaped situation.
I agree with Anne in that it is dangerous to drive and to assist to another
task at the same time. In Spain it is forbidden to use the mobile telephone
while he/she is driving. But I have understood that there are some countries
in those that there are highways in those that it is not necessary that the
driver maintains all his attention and, also, I know that systems of
automatic conduction are designing. Anyway it can be a possible situation in
the future, that some will consider important to keep in mind and other not.
But if all agree on eliminating the external factors, me too.

Regards,
Emmanuelle

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@erols.com>
To: "'Emmanuelle Gutierrez y Restrepo'" <emmanuelle@teleline.es>; "Lisa
Seeman" <lseeman@globalformats.com>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 3:53 PM
Subject: RE: an action item :)


> Emmanuelle,
>
> The examples you used are unique uses of the Internet and would not apply
> to all web pages on the Internet - only those to be used in those unique
> situations. I am strongly opposed to ANY accommodation that encourages the
> user to be distracted while driving a vehicle on the same road with me! If
> you HAVE to consult the Internet while you are driving, at least have the
> sense to pull off the road and do your thing, then get back on the road.
>
> Anne
>
> On Monday, July 16, 2001 7:32 AM, Emmanuelle Gutierrez y Restrepo
> [SMTP:emmanuelle@teleline.es] wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The External Factors that I have mentioned, are not limited to a noisy
or
> > not well illuminated atmosphere neither they refer to situations in
those
> > that the user can make something to change them.
> > Let us think of a person that uses a kiosk in an airport or in that that
> > drives their car and at the same time he/she has to use Internet or in
> any
> > situation in the one that the hands or the user's senses are hindered.
> >
> > If the main objective of the guidelines is people with disability, then
> they
> > should keep in mind the handicap situation in that any person can be.
> Unless
> > you want to follow a "disability" definition different from the
> conventional
> > one internationally for the WHO.
> >
> > I don't believe that to include external factors reduces the importance
> of
> > the guidelines, on the contrary, I believe that for some managers, not
> very
> > sensitive to the necessities of people with disabilities, this focus ago
> > more attractive the necessity to implement them.
> >
> > Of course that it is a work of EO to explain the reasons to apply the
> > guidelines, but I believe that in the introduction it should be
> mentioned,
> > at least, the factors that the guidelines are kept in mind or that they
> > cover.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Emmanuelle
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Lisa Seeman" <lseeman@globalformats.com>
> > To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 9:57 AM
> > Subject: Re: an action item :)
> >
> >
> > > I think Emmanuelle has made a point of other advantages of following
> the
> > > guidelines. That in following them the site will be useable and
helpful
> > for
> > > "the noisy or
> > > not well illuminated atmospheres".
> > >
> > >
> > > This, I think, is just usability and not about making content
> > inaccessible.
> > > Now our guidelines will help these situations, but they are not (in my
> > > opinion) what they were for. Therefore I prefer to not include these
> > > usability but not accessibility points. I think that is belongs with
> EO,
> > as
> > > another good reason for implementing the guidelines.
> > >
> > > I think making people think that these guideline include things to
help
> > > people in a noisy room, will reduce their importance and legitimize a
> > "take
> > > it or leave it"  attitude.
> > >
> > > I was under the impression, that we put some responsibility on the end
> > user.
> > > Turning on the lighting is probably a good minimum requirement.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Emmanuelle Gutierrez y Restrepo" <emmanuelle@teleline.es>
> > > To: <cyns@opendesign.com>; <lseeman@globalformats.com>;
> > <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> > > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 6:35 PM
> > > Subject: Re: an action item :)
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Maybe be good idea that in the introduction of the guidelines the
> > > meticulous
> > > > explanations are eliminated on the types of deficiencies that cover,
> > > > provided another document that explains clearly what a type of users
> > exist
> > > > and in what circumstances they have been kept in mind when editing
> the
> > > > rules.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, in the writing proposed by Lisa she lacks to mention the
> > external
> > > > conditions. I believe that we can classify to all the users and
their
> > > > personal circumstances in three factors to keep in mind: Personal
> > factors
> > > > (that cover the disability, the age and the illiteracy),
> Technological
> > > > Factors (that cover the necessity to use assistive technology and
all
> > the
> > > > technologies that can be used) and External Factors (that cover the
> > noisy
> > > or
> > > > not well illuminated atmospheres and any other obstacle unaware to
> the
> > > > person).
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Emmanuelle
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: <cyns@opendesign.com>
> > > > To: <lseeman@globalformats.com>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 2:18 AM
> > > > Subject: RE: an action item :)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Short, sweet, and to the point.  I like it.
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Lisa Seeman [mailto:lseeman@globalformats.com]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 7:11 AM
> > > > > To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> > > > > Subject: an action item :)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In the ftf one of my action items was to write a replacement for
> the
> > > list
> > > > > of impairments catered for in the introduction.
> > > > >
> > > > > The idea is to give people a sense of context about who and what
> the
> > > > > guidelines are for, some awareness of what user groups and devices
> > > exist,
> > > > > without opening a Pandora's box of classifying disabilities (which
> I
> > > > > personally felt could get offensive)
> > > > >
> > > > > I felt that it important to get a proposal on the table, so that
we
> > can
> > > > > agree if this is the kind of thing we want in principal, and then
> we
> > > > > can  get pedantic about semantics and my grammar.
> > > > >
> > > > > So in your comments, please remember to say if this is
> > > > >   the kind of thing that you want content wise
> > > > >   and the kind of style that we want
> > > > >
> > > > > It is a bit plagiarized from our home site, but we do not  mind.
> > > > >
> > > > > <this is it>
> > > > > Understanding the guidelines involves remembering that not all
> devices
> > > are
> > > > > the same, (e.g. keypads, brail readers )  not all systems are the
> > same,
> > > > > (e.g. voice browsers, screen magnifiers)  and not all  people are
> the
> > > > same.
> > > > > (From the visually impaired, low motor coordination, to the
> learning
> > > > > disabled, what make you unique?) In implementing the guidelines
one
> > must
> > > > > attempt to cater for the maximum number of people in the maximum
> > number
> > > of
> > > > > scenarios. This can be achieved though a single accessible
> rendering
> > or
> > > > > multiple accessible renderings that are optimized for different
> > > > situations.
> > > > > </this is it>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>

Received on Monday, 16 July 2001 12:27:43 UTC