- From: Chris O'Kennon <chris@vipnet.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:30:48 -0400
- To: "'GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU'" <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Message-ID: <BCECCA7B3D37D611ABC5009027D6228A0402F4@iexch1.vipnet.org>
Here in the state of Virginia, even though we may talk about being "accessible" or "not accessible" amongst ourselves, we have been told by our Attorney General's Office that it is far better to say offciially that we are "compliant" with certain guidelines, than accessible. As Gregg said, nothing can ever be fully accessible. Chris O'Kennon Commonwealth of Virginia Webmaster/ VIPNet Portal Architect www.myvirginia.org <http://www.myvirginia.org/> 804.786.6216 --- I haven't lost my mind -- it's backed up on tape somewhere. -- -----Original Message----- From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 2:01 PM To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Definition of Accessible I think we need to watch our use of terminology here. Especially the term "accessible". If we say that things are accessible - we need to say that everything is accessible or nothing is ever accessible. There is no middle ground if we are going to make blanket statements. Proposal: 1) We NEVER declare something as accessible or not. 2) We ONLY talk about a) things being accessible to individuals or to people with particular characteristics. Or b) things meeting particular accessibility standards. If we talk about (a) things being accessible to groups of individuals then we should carefully and fully list the characteristics including presence or lack of any other disabilities - including cognitive level) Rationales Rationale for not ever declaring things as accessible or inaccessible overall. There is always someone who cannot use something - no matter how we design it. If we make blanket statements that things are accessible we will always be wrong. (unless we mean accessible to some - which is always true and therefore not useful). Rationale for only talking about accessibility as applying to individuals or as compliance The only thing that seems to be accurate is to talk about whether some person can use them. But we need to be specific or we end up saying that people with XYZ disability can use it - when only people with XYZ who are also computer literate or don't have any other disabilities or ..... We CAN say that things meet a particular standard. When we talk about accessible buildings, that is what we are saying. They are not usable by everyone. But they do meet a standard. Your thoughts? Gregg ------------------------------------ Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D. Ind Engr - Biomed - Trace, Univ of Wis gv@trace.wisc.edu < SNIP > > No, I don't think it is possible to make that particular piece of satire > accessible. In general I think satire is a very difficult thing to make > accessible, and I don't believe that many people intend it to be generally > so.
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 16:30:46 UTC