RE: Edit in Scope section

Nice one Wendy.

Unless someone has an objection to this -- I think we should try it out and
move on for now.  If someone sees a problem with it when incorporated - then
re-raise it.  

Please look over the great work done by our two subcommittees so we can get
the Plain language and testability work incorporated.

Thanks 
 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: Wendy A Chisholm [mailto:wendy@w3.org] 
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 2:38 PM
To: gv@trace.wisc.edu; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Edit in Scope section

Can we simply say, "These guidelines provide recommendations to developers 
and managers who wish to make Web content more accessible and usable by 
people with disabilities."

In other words, remove the adjectives and simply say "people with 
disabilities."  Later, we can enumerate the types and combinations of 
disabilities or leave it to the EOWG documents.

--wendy

At 07:16 PM 11/5/2003, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

>I think the objective was to say that the guidelines are meant to apply to 
>people with all different types of disabilities.    This is in contrast to 
>guidelines that apply to some (different disabilities) but omit others.
>
>
>
>   different types of disabilities  could mean just   vision, hearing, and 
> physical.    The ALL was meant to make the goal to include all.
>
>
>
>(or at least all that can be addressed by web content design.  Lower back 
>pain and chemical sensitivity being two that are not in this category).
>
>
>
>What we had was clearly bad English.     But how to do we do it well to 
>cover all.
>
>
>
>
>
>Full range is the best Ive seen of the suggestions.  Implies not only 
>types but degrees.
>
>
>
>hmmmm
>
>
>
>
>Gregg
>
>  -- ------------------------------
>Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
>Director - Trace R & D Center
>University of Wisconsin-Madison
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On 
>Behalf Of Doyle Burnett
>Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 2:53 PM
>To: Sailesh Panchang; W3C Web Content
>Subject: Re: Edit in Scope section
>
>
>
>I would agree with Sailesh full range is a confusing phrase as it could be 
>implied that a person or persons have the full range of a GIVEN 
>disability.  I feel, usable by people having different kinds of 
>disabilitiesis the best way to present what I am guessing were trying to
say.
>
>Doyle Burnett
>
>
>Doyle Burnett
>Education and Training Specialist
>Multiple Disabilities Program
>Special Education Service Agency
>dburnett@sesa.org
>Www.sesa.org
>--
>
>
>
>On 11/5/03 11:24 AM, "Sailesh Panchang" <sailesh.panchang@deque.com> wrote:
>
>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> *
>
>
>
>

-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
/--

Received on Thursday, 6 November 2003 16:09:02 UTC