Re: Edit in Scope section

Would it be easier to turn this around, and talk about users with 
different levels and kinds of ABILITIES?

-Kerstin

Doyle Burnett wrote:

> To All Discussing This -
>
> Good dialogue that we're having - I have a problem with using the word 
> "full" as it makes it sound all inclusive which is what I know we're 
> striving for.  I really do think something like - usable by all people 
> regardless of disability or usable by people having many different 
> types of disabilities or usable by people having different kinds of 
> disabilities.
>
> Again, "full range" seems (to me) to imply something a bit odd and I 
> cannot fully rationalize my thought process.  It's almost like if you 
> do not have the particular full range of a particular disability, we 
> may NOT be talking about you.  The full range of autism, the full 
> range of blindness (total) - I don't know.  Thoughts?
>
> On 11/5/03 12:01 PM, "Sailesh Panchang" <sailesh.panchang@deque.com> 
> wrote:
>
>     : John M Slatin <mailto:john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>  writes:
>     Good catch! Maybe "... the full range of people with disabilities"?
>     ===
>     Sailesh:
>     I think "full range of PWD" reduces PWD to some inanimate objects
>     or produce  like full range of something or the other.
>     So I stick to my earlier view that is reproduced below:
>     Refer to WCAG 2.0 Scope. A statement reads:
>     "...and usable by people with a full range of disabilities. "
>      
>     Probably  what is meant is  "usable by people  having different
>     kinds of disabilities"
>     Does "people with full range"  imply   only those those
>     individuals each of whom have  all disabilities  imaginable?
>     Probably not.
>     Sailesh Panchang
>     Senior Accessibility Engineer
>     Deque Systems,11180  Sunrise Valley Drive,
>     4th Floor, Reston VA 20191
>     Tel: 703-225-0380 Extension 105
>     E-mail: sailesh.panchang@deque.com
>     Fax: 703-225-0387
>     * Look up <http://www.deque.com> *
>
>
>