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

Re: Respect - was Re: The two models of accessibility

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 12:26:19 -0500
To: Graham Oliver <goliver@accease.com>, Larry.G.Hull@nasa.gov, phoenixl@sonic.net
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-id: <01b801c2facf$4fad0ab0$6501a8c0@handsontech>

I deal with the issue by working to assist in development that precludes as
few people as possible maintaining that it is the technology that needs
fixing not the people unless it is through education or provision of
adaptation.  One size fits all is sort of part of the way there.  I guess
you could say that the back door is like the text only site.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham Oliver" <goliver@accease.com>
To: <Larry.G.Hull@nasa.gov>; <phoenixl@sonic.net>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 10:53 PM
Subject: Respect - was Re: The two models of accessibility

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
of 'physical accessibility' that the 'disabled entrance' into a building
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
that useful when looking at web site accessibility, but I am wondering how
ensure that an 'accessibility solution' is respectful.

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

But I would be really interested in how other people deal with this issue,
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
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 Friday, 4 April 2003 12:27:14 UTC

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