- From: Scott Luebking <phoenixl@netcom.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 15:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
- To: asgilman@iamdigex.net, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Hi, Al I agree with you, but then the question becomes a little more interesting. Does the definition of accessibility change depending on the nature of the audience? The argument that came up was that the WAI guidelines are for the general population like in a library. Should there be a different set of guidelines for a more contained environment like a class? (For example, if a company has chosen one browser to be the corporate browser and programs to that browser, can a blind person who prefers to use lynx argue that he/she should be allowed to use lynx as an accomodation?) Suppose that students used a windows application which was not required to be accessible. The developers then move the application to a web environment using Javascript. What happens in this situation? Most mass spectrometers are inaccessible to blind students. Can professors be required not to use mass spectrometers? If the accomodation for mass spectrometers is having a reader, why cannot the same accomodation be made to students using highly visual/interactive web pages? Some people here at Berkeley are wondering if OCR is making a mistake by specifying those guidelines. Could a university argue that OCR is limited in its technical background to make such decisions if the definition of accessibility is dependent on the environment? (At least a couple of professors here on campus are not very pleased by the web access issues. Not a fun meeting.) Perhaps another variation is when will it be reasonable for a university to assume that each student must be proficient in using Windows? Scott > If the issue is scripting, then what the professor proposes fails the > criterion set down by the regents, because dependency on scripts violates a > > Priority 1 checkpoint (6.3) in the WCAG. > > Check me on that; did I read it right? > > Al
Received on Friday, 8 October 1999 18:24:18 UTC