- From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 10:30:37 -0500
- To: "Yvette P. Hoitink" <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>, "WAI-GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
"Good design is accessible design." -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yvette P. Hoitink Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 10:11 am To: 'WAI-GL' Subject: RE: Definition of human testability John Slatin wrote: > > Good question, Yvette. > > In the case you describe-- a paper on machine learning > intended for specialists in that or related fields-- I think > the appropriate way to conduct user testing for clarity would > be to include people who have learning disabilities who are > knowledgeable about machine learning or related fields. I > think there are at least a few people on this list who have > learning disabilities and who have expertise in advanced informatics. But this is exactly the point I'm trying to make: there is a whole range of learning disabilities out there. Your test method gives a false impression of accessibility for people with learning disabilities! Just because some people with certain learning disabilities find the text clearly written, doesn't mean the the text is clear for "people with learning accessibilities" in general. The text can be perfectly clear for people with dyslexia or ADD but not for someone with Down's syndrom or a brain injury. Your method is like asking a person with limited vision to test the accessibility for all people with vision problems (including blind people using braille). Ah. I see I didn't make myself clear enough [sic]. I wasn't proposing that such a test would legitimize a claim that your text would be clear to *all* possible users of the Web. I don't believe that all Web content should have to meet that test, which would mean that financial experts couldn't publish technical reports; scientists couldn't publish research findings; anthropologists couldn't publish studies of the strange cultural practices of people trying to write accessibility standards; etc. I don't want to prevent people from writing for specialized audiences! But I would like for people doing such writing to integrate into their basic assumptions about their audiences the *assumption* that the audience includes people with disabilities, including learning disabilities. One of the provisions in US disability law says that the prohibition against discriminating against students on the basis of disability does not require colleges and universities to change the fundamental character of their academic programs-- for example, universities do not have to lower their admissions standards in order to accommodate students who have disabilities. What's required is that students with disabilities be given appropriate opportunities to demonstrate their knwledge and skill in order to gain admission, and that they be given appropriate opportunities to learn alongside their non-disabled peers. There are certain things people must know in order to become organic chemists; people have to know those things whether they have disabilities or not. But some people may require different kinds of support in order to gain that knowledge. But that doesn't mean that chemists can no longer use the names of complex molecules or the technical terms for the processes they're studying. John Yvette Hoitink Heritas, Enschede, the Netherlands E-mail: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl WWW: http://www.heritas.nl
Received on Monday, 3 May 2004 11:30:56 UTC