W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2003

Respect - was Re: The two models of accessibility

From: Graham Oliver <goliver@accease.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 15:53:00 +1200
Message-ID: <01C2FAC2.467705C0.goliver@accease.com>
To: "'Larry.G.Hull@nasa.gov'" <Larry.G.Hull@nasa.gov>, "'phoenixl@sonic.net'" <phoenixl@sonic.net>
Cc: "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

It's interesting that when I read the original post about stairs I initially 
considered that the reason that the stairs were not accesible was that it is 
disrespectful to ask someone to crawl up stairs.

I didn't consider the amount of effort at all.

My understanding is that there is a considerable body of opinion in the world 
of 'physical accessibility' that the 'disabled entrance' into a building that 
may be round the back and may entail going by all the garbage bins is simply 
not 'accessible', however physically easy it is to get in that way.

I am beginning to find that the physical accessibility analogies tend not to be 
that useful when looking at web site accessibility, but I am wondering how to 
ensure that an 'accessibility solution' is respectful.

The answer we came up with is to ensure that a web site is easy and satisfying 
to use for disabled people by doing testing with disabled people and I tend to 
go for a 'one size fits all'.

But I would be really interested in how other people deal with this issue, if 
at all.


Hi, Larry

The reason I brought up the issue of paraplegics and stairs is that
while paraplegics can get up stairs with a great deal of effort, the
stairs are not considered accessible.  Similarly, while visually impaired
users can use web pages, it is often with great effort.  I believe that
amount of effort needed to overcome some obstacle should be considered
as a factor in assessing accessibility.

Another point to be considered is that if information is presented in a format
which can lead the visually impaired user to inaccrurately receive the
information, then that is also a barrier.


> Scott,
> I must not have been clear but I don't really see how I could have
> worded it better.
> I am NOT saying steps are accessible to paraplegics.
> My point is that removing barriers is what "compatable" means, at
> least to me, in Section 508 which you quoted then questioned in your
> original message.

AccEase Ltd : Making on-line information accessible
Mobile : +64 21 458 967
Email : goliver@accease.com
Web : www.accease.com
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2003 22:59:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:15 UTC