- From: <cyns@opendesign.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 15:24:48 -0700
- To: paulb@cpd2.usu.edu, wendy@w3.org, jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
I'll second this one. -----Original Message----- From: Paul Bohman [mailto:paulb@cpd2.usu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 11:33 AM To: Wendy A Chisholm; jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU; Web Content Guidelines Subject: Open issue #55 Open issue #55 <quote> Paul proposed a "Limitations" section that discusses the usability/accessibility conundrum which we have not yet resolved. It sets expectations that we discuss some usability issues but will not attempt to cover them all. </quote> The actual wording of a "limitations" section may vary significantly from what I originally proposed, but I am still in favor of including a reference to the fact that, no matter how good our guidelines end up being, they are not going to solve every problem for every person with a disability. Exactly how we say this, or how much space this takes up (whether one sentence or a paragraph) will depend on the final shape and form of the guidelines themselves. I just think that it is important for us to point out the limitations of our work, whatever those limitations may be. Note that my intent is much broader than just a debate about usability versus accessibility. That is only one of many potential limitations of our guidelines. There are a few reasons why I think it is important to acknowledge the limitations of our guidelines: 1. I believe that it will increase our credibility. 2. It will give us something to work toward in future versions 3. *** This is probably the most important of all: It underscores the fact that wrote compliance with a set of guidelines is not synonymous with accessibility. Paul Bohman Technology Coordinator WebAIM (Web Accessibility in Mind) www.webaim.org Utah State University www.usu.edu
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2001 18:25:24 UTC