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

Re: The two models of accessibility

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 07:22:20 -0500
To: phoenixl <phoenixl@sonic.net>, Larry.G.Hull@nasa.gov
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-id: <007801c2faa4$d7cd4610$6501a8c0@handsontech>

the wai and section 508 guidelines and standards respectively do a great
deal to mittigate this.  Things are improving but here does need to be a
judgement set built up for people or perhaps add to the techniques and force
some sense into the picture if possible.  For example, I do not need to be
told that this is a button linking to this page in the text of a link.  I do
not need to be told that a lay out table is a lay out table.  I do not need
to be told that something is a picture of something but what is the picture
of would be a better question to answer?  There are a whole host of these
little things that we can use to guide us in the way we semantisize
information.  The new struggle to bring the web directly to those with
different cognative levels is teaching us that there is more to
understanding than understanding.

----- Original Message -----
From: "phoenixl" <phoenixl@sonic.net>
To: <Larry.G.Hull@nasa.gov>; <phoenixl@sonic.net>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: The two models of accessibility

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
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.
Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 07:22:25 UTC

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