- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 09:17:30 -0700
- To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Cc: "GLWAI Guidelines WG \(GL - WAI Guidelines WG\)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 09:03 AM 10/5/2001 , Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: >The consensus statements we came up with were: > >G-3. Where Author and User needs conflict such that the Author cannot >meet the User needs, then an alternate form which is accessible needs to >be provided that is as close to the original functionality as is >technically possible. A nice principle but the questions here include "how does the author know what the user's needs are" and "which needs are we talking about here" and "if the author couldn't meet the user needs, then how does she produce the this alternate form?" Does "accessible" mean "meet user needs", and if so then we need to define what those needs are. >and > >G-4. User vs. User needs is something we need to look at on a >case-by-case basis, but it is also a test we need to apply to every >normative requirement anyway. “If this done, is some group being cut >out?” User vs. user needs are easier to solve, just don't rely on having a single interface which is a compromise (and thus "passable" for everyone). I think it is fair to be contradictory sometimes. "Have smooth curbcuts which are easier to get wheelchairs up" vs. "have a definite ridge so blind people can tell where the curb ends and don't walk into the street and get hit by cars" are conflicts in real life, but they still legitimately articulate the needs of specific disability groups. In the "real world", if we could magically reconfigure our streetcorner to meet the needs of each individual user, the conflict goes away. Since this is not the physical world we're dealing with, we _can_ do that kind of magic, and we can make user needs vs. user needs conflicts go away quite easily. I think that if we are to have legitimacy we need to address user accommodations even if they don't necessarily meet the needs of all users. If we shy away from that then we risk our legitimacy. We can't simply say "this will help <some> users, but we can't do that because it will make things worse for <other> users." In truth, we aren't afraid to introduce usability problems for "50% users" (those in the middle of the bellcurve whose needs are generally are met) because of the needs of users with disabilities. --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com> Technical Developer Liaison Reef North America Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network ________________________________________ BUSINESS IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL. ________________________________________ http://www.reef.com
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 12:19:06 UTC