- From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 09:03:15 -0600
- To: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF4E3B6862.74B62700-ON86257DE4.0050D634-86257DE4.0052B3BF@us.ibm.com>
Sure. Absolutely. I've been thinking that way and promoting that vision since the 'perfect storm' of mobile and situational impairments began with the advent of the iPhone 3. However, the definition has. to. include. disability, has to be 'rooted' in fundamental enablement, disability has to be 'core' often (always?) has to be 'start' with disability one can't test in disability support etc. People with disabilities, often (ever?) don't have the choice to move to where the glare prevents one from seeing the screen, doesn't have the choice to pull over and text instead of driving, doesn't have the choice to buy new earbuds when one can't hear the video, etc. etc. I have too many stories and history of where something that was initially accessible got "broken" when it went 'main-stream' (a.k.a. for everyone). For example, early 1990's versions of voice command and control were fundamentally developed and accepted by users who had no limbs or fine motor control to be able to even use a mouse. It enabled them to not have to use a mouth stick, even with slightly better than 50% recognition rates. Then it went main stream with voice dictation, IBM ViaVoice, etc. and the only way to install and get started with it REQUIRED a mouse. ugh. Yes it got fixed, but could you imagine not being able to use your smart phone or laptop for months? Another example; early versions of BIOS settings couldn't be re-enabled (without a mouse) if/when you disabled the Mouse setting . . yeah you could re-boot, but what a pain. So the definition of accessibility has. to. be. inclusive of. disability. ____________________________________________ Regards, Phill Jenkins, IBM Accessibility From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> To: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> Date: 02/06/2015 05:25 AM Subject: the official definition [of web accessibility] from the W3C is wrong discussion starter: "We need to change the way we talk about accessibility. Most people are taught that ?web accessibility means that people with disabilities can use the Web?? the official definition from the W3C. This is wrong. Web accessibility means that people can use the web." source: Reframing Accessibility for the Web http://alistapart.com/article/reframing-accessibility-for-the-web -- Regards SteveF
Received on Friday, 6 February 2015 15:03:49 UTC