- From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 08:00:18 -0400
- To: phoenixl <phoenixl@sonic.net>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
so what are gw micro and freedomscientific and dolfin and others doing spinning their wheels then? Why is it that our capability grows with each new release? This is not a blind thing. ----- Original Message ----- From: "phoenixl" <phoenixl@sonic.net> To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 11:26 PM Subject: Re: Time and Accessibility (RE: was Testing web page accessibility by phone Hi, The issue of limitis is tricky. I also believe that achievability plays a role too. For example, can Mount Everest be considered accessible? If a significant amount of the US fiscal resources were made available, Mount Everest could probably be made accessible. As near as I can tell, there really hasn't been much research into what aspects of a web page can increase the amount of time needed for blind subjects to use web pages. Some improvements might actually be quite easy. Scott > By taking an ad absurdum example it's easy to show that time is an > accessibility issue - would you consider a wheelchair user travelling 20 > miles under his or her own steam to be an equally accessible form of > transportation to a wheelchair-enabled bus? > > One of the problems with time (and also effort, concentration, and other > requirements that can increase when one is making use of an accessibility > feature), is that it is hard to measure in a way that will be valid for all > users, and hard to decide on clear limits for (how slow does something have > to be before it really affects accessibility?). This is unsatisfying for > those of us who attempt to come up with solutions, mainly technical, to > these problems.
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 08:01:25 UTC