- From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 13:23:55 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I guess we don't need ramps or widened doors or fixtures that accommodate wheell chair users because they might hinder someone. In fact, the available datta suggest that web design that promotes access is more benefitial to all. As has been mentioned on another list, universal design is a process not an end result and the target is you. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael R. Burks" <mburks952@worldnet.att.net> To: "Scott Luebking" <phoenixl@sonic.net>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 1:07 PM Subject: RE: Fwd from CHI-WEB: Amazon's version for the Visually Impaired My Answers are belwo yours marked with my intials, Sincerely, Mike Burks -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Scott Luebking Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 12:30 PM To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org Subject: RE: Fwd from CHI-WEB: Amazon's version for the Visually Impaired Hi, A number of things I'm involved with are outside of the disabled world which exposes me to a variety of views. So, let me ask some hard questions about universal design. 1. Does universal design mean that the experience of one person has to be limited so that another person can have a similar experience, e.g. a slick, flashy design? I would put it another way - Does my experience have to be limited because a designer in interested in displaying his or her skill with techniques that are irrelevant to the site? I have never see any evidence that slick, flashy, design does anything except boost the ego of the person who designed it. If you go to www.useit.com you will find a good deal of hard evidence the reason most people are on the web. It is not to experience slick, flashy, design. As has been stated on another list, often Universal Design is not quite as efficient for one particular group as a design which is made for that particular group. However overall efficiency has increased. More appropriately if the user can decide how they want the content that should be their choice. - MRB 2. If there is a technique which some people can use to speed up their use of information, but other people can't use and will be slower at processing information, should the technique not be used? What if there is no other equivalent technique that increases the speed that a person can use the information? I do not understand what you mean, you will have to be more specific. - MRB 3. Does a person using access technology have the same experience as someone not using access technology even if they are referencing the same web page? Does a person who wears glasses have the same experience that a person who does not? Does a sighted person have the same experience that a blind person does? Does a person who was born in 1947 have the same experience tha a person who was born in 1986 has? Does a person from France have the same experience as a person from Uganda? Does a person who is female have the same experience as a person who is male? Does a person who is on prozac have the same experience as a person who is not? Do you have the same experience that I do? No one will have the same experience as another, so I clearly do not understand the relevance of this question to the issues at hand. - MRB Just a few thoughts. Scott > Design for all, Universal Design, now we begin to see relevance of these > terms. > > Sincerely, > > Mike Burks
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 13:23:48 UTC