RE: GL 2.2: new benefit (low computer literacy)

Christophe wrote:

<blockquote>
One of the resolutions of the 26 May 2005 telecon was to discuss the 
following new benefit on the list:

<proposal>
People with low computer literacy, particularly the elderly, do not get 
confused or are not led to think that they have made a mistake.
</proposal>
</blockquote>

We should *not* include this language in WCAG 2.0. As Gregg pointed out
in a previous response to this message, the Working Group decided some
time ago that WCAG 2.0 should focus on benefits specifically for users
with disabilities.

There has been recent discussion about amending that decision to allow
for more attention to older users.  No decision on that issue has yet
been taken.  But even if we do decide to include descriptions of how our
SC benefit older users, we should not include  identify possible
benefits for people with limited computer skills.  That would seriously
weaken the credibility of WCAG.

John





"Good design is accessible design"
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Senior Accessibility Specialist
RampWEB, Inc.
phone +1.512.266.6189 email jslatin@rampweb.com
www.rampweb.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Christophe Strobbe
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 4:49 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: GL 2.2: new benefit (low computer literacy)



Hi,

One of the resolutions of the 26 May 2005 telecon was to discuss the 
following new benefit on the list:

<proposal>
People with low computer literacy, particularly the elderly, do not get 
confused or are not led to think that they have made a mistake.
</proposal>

This proposal came out of issue 1432 ("unsolicited transitions
confuse"). Some participants objected to the inclusion of this benefit
because low 
computer literacy is not a disability (e.g. taken to the extreme: some 
people get confused when seated in front of a computer with a mouse
because 
they don't see the relation between the screen and the mouse, and it is
not 
the author's task to remedy this).
However, even though WCAG is about lowering barriers for people with 
disabilities, there's nothing wrong with pointing out benefits for
people 
who don't consider themselves as disabled. Defining *benefits* is
something 
quite different than saying that there should be *success criteria* for 
people with low computer literacy.

Regards,

Christophe



-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group 
on  Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/

Received on Monday, 6 June 2005 04:56:14 UTC