- From: Charles F. Munat <chas@munat.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 23:38:54 -0700
- To: "'Steve Baty'" <steve@redsquare.com>, "WAI Interest Group \(E-mail\)" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "'davey'" <davey@inx-jp.org>
Steve Baty wrote: "You can't blame the content when the problem is actually lack of access to the technology as a whole." Reply: True, but you can when the content requires a certain *type* of equipment. For example, if a site required an expensive browser to be accessible, that might constitute an unfair barrier. I was actually thinking along the lines of high- vs. low-bandwidth connections, but the idea is equally applicable to other technological barriers. To draw your suggested parallel to TV, it would be like requiring a "color" TV, or a certain size TV, or a TV with stereo to access the content. The current WCAG already addresses this to some degree. If you think it's a laudable goal to make the Web accessible to all, why flinch? Why assume that it will be any more difficult than making it accessible to people with disabilities? It's certainly more inclusive: it doesn't leave anyone out. If a person cannot afford an Internet connection at all, then true, the WCAG can't help. But ensuring that content is accessible using older technology or on less expensive browsers/connections isn't really all that difficult and might be easier to sell. Look back at some of Kynn's comments on how "accessibility helps everyone" in the archives to see what I mean. Kynn has been an aggressive proponent of making sites work on phone browsers, etc. for a long time. Why make exceptions? Why fight for the enfranchisement of one group - people with disabilities - and disregard another with similar problems: the economically disadvantaged? Especially since so many in the former are also in the latter. That's why I say, when the method by which content is presented unnecessarily excludes *any* group of people, then that content is inaccessible. Davey Leslie wrote: "Seems you'd have to define what 'unnecessary' means. Do they stand in contrast to necessary barriers? What might those be?" Reply: Perhaps unnecessary isn't the right word, but I can't think of a better one just yet. As for necessary barriers, I would think that those would represent barriers which the technology creates which have yet to be overcome. Or barriers that cannot be corrected via the technology. For example, if a person has no Internet connection at all, then we can't overcome that barrier with better content. Dick Brown wrote: "That task is tough enough -- can you imagine drafting guidelines for how to make the Web accessible to the economically disadvantaged?" Yes I can. In fact, I think that the current guidelines do a pretty good job. The key is to make web content cross-browser compatible and to avoid sites that only work on one technology (e.g., only on cell phones, or only on IE). Another key is to make content independent of connection speed. That means optimizing text and graphics for fast downloads and allowing users to opt out of large downloads (making sure that the content is delivered in some other way). My concern is that in our rush to address the needs of one group, we will exacerbate the problem for another. I think that narrowly defining accessibility to refer *only* to people with disabilities hurts our efforts. Not only does it overlook other types of barriers, it implies that there are people who are *not* disabled. Now we have another "us vs. them" situation in which the needs of one group are pitted against the needs of the other. There should be no dividing line: it is a continuum. Everyone is able to some degree and disabled to some other degree. If we are drawing a line, where do we draw it? By stressing accessibility for *everyone* we avoid stigmatizing one group. We also greatly simplify the definition because we no longer have to determine whether something is a barrier to people with disabilities or not. A barrier to anyone is a barrier, and if it can be eliminated by better organization and coding of content, then it should be removed. Can a site that takes an hour to download on a 14k connection truly be called accessible? Can a site that can be viewed by any person with a disability but *only on IE 5.5* be called accessible? (Just thinking out loud here on our late night pacific northwest net.) Charles F. Munat Seattle, Washington
Received on Tuesday, 24 October 2000 02:34:04 UTC