- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 16:05:13 -0500 (EST)
- To: Brumage_D <Brumage_D@bls.gov>
- cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, David Meadows <david@heroes.force9.co.uk>
On the one hand, the development of new technology is a vital part of the endeavour to provide accessibility. Since the tools do not currently exist to access all the things which people use and love in the world, we must either innovate and create new tools, or stop people using any tool which is not currently accessible, in order to provide accessiblity. The second option is not viable in the general case. There are instances where it should be done (where two tools provide the same function, the one which provides it in a more accessible fashion should be used, and the other one not used.) but they don't generalise. On the other hand, there are two approaches to innovation. One is to simply try things, and see what should be tried next - a fairly simple incremental process of adding gadgets, bells and whistles to what we have. For accessibility, this simply implies that it is necessary to follow the world at a distance of two inventions, creating tools to work with each new bell or whistle. The other is to look at what is being done, what else it would be good to do, and what are the accessibility problems inherent in those activities. This change in the set of requirements should produce a sea change in the set of results produced: accessibility which is affordable, and up-to-date. My objection is not, therefore, to the use of new technology - Intel and I are both working on developing new technology. I am simply concerned that marketing pressure (and market pressure) will be used to encourage the growth of high-end wizrdry at the expense of general accessibility, instead of encouraging the expansion of accessibility because this might slow the rate of 'new-toy' acquisition. This is not something which can easily be reduced to hard and fast rules. If a bionic ear can be developed which will help people who are deaf to hear, then the fact that it only works for people who can operatee a physically small and complex device should stop its development (although development of other control systems should also proceed). It is my feeling that good corporate citizenship (by which I refer to corporations in the broad sense of the word, rather than the narrow commercial/legal definition) implies that a high-tech toy which makes a relatively small difference to most of their employees, at a serious cost to a few of their employees, would be rejected, and a better solution found. It would mean that the approach to innovation and development includes accessibility as a first-class technical issue to be dealt with in the design, not something which is added on afterwards if it is feasible. The fact that these ideas cannot be quantified or measured very easily simply means that they require a bit of thought to implement them, and that at the end of the day there will be differences of opinion as to how well anybody (including me) has succeeded in following them. But I think they are important ideas. And in so far as the use of new high-end gadgetry is touched on by those ideas, it is a topic related to accessibility, at a very fundamental level. (Which may not solve the problems of today, but may avoid diving into a future where the problems increase faster than they can be solved). my 2 cents worth Charles McCathieNevile On Thu, 4 Mar 1999, Brumage_D wrote: Intel themselves admit that for most users the true added benefit of the PIII processor will be invisible due to current internet access limitations (bandwidth). However, with the current trends in cable modem, DSL and other high speed access capabilities, this will change quickly over the next year with a much larger percentage of Internet users having the bandwidth available to support real time streaming media. In the mean-time this chip has a place in corporate America. Imagine you are tasked to create a training application to be delivered across your corporate network. This technology makes it much easier for you to produce a full multimedia interactive application delivered to your new hires via the corporate Intranet. We shouldn't dismiss new technology just because we don't see the benefit for ourselves. In another couple years when this is the low-end or obsolete Intel offering we won't remember how we ever got by without it. David > ---------- > From: David Meadows[SMTP:david@heroes.force9.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 1:08 AM > To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > Subject: Re: Pentium III-only sites coming > > Lovey@aol.com <Lovey@aol.com> wrote: > > [snip] > >...the common goal is to usher owners of a Pentium III into special pages > >where content such as streaming media, 3D interfaces and animation have > been > >peak-tuned to suit Intel's latest powerhouse processor. > > > I don't understand the value of this. How can content be "peak-tuned to > suit > Intel's latest powerhouse processor" unless they also supply every Pentium > III user with a T3 (or similar) link to the Internet? Isn't the type of > computer actually the least important factor in how a web page is viewed? > > Is it just me, or does everybody else also think this is stupid? > > > -- > David Meadows [ Technical Writer | Information Developer ] > DNRC Minister for Littorasy * david@heroes.force9.co.uk > > "If you are worried that your children are going to read > low-quality information, teach them. Teach them what to read. > Teach them how to judge information." -- Tim Berners-Lee > > --Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +1 617 258 0992 http://purl.oclc.org/net/charles W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI MIT/LCS - 545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139, USA
Received on Thursday, 4 March 1999 22:03:35 UTC