RE: Ability taxonomy bh

Hi Paul,

Maybe the problem is differentiating between what needs to be done on the 
source side - and what needs to be done on the viewer/player/browser side. 
    And then realizing that although w3c has most influence in the source 
and pipeline areas, the WAI has also discussed working on browser and 
viewer guidelines.

So all disabilities would be in the scope of the work.

And - with applets - we have a situation where the viewer / player software 
is often downloaded from the source - thus making things even more 
interesting   -   and increasing the need to look at all disabilities even 
on the source side.

Gregg



-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Human Factors
Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis.
Director - Trace R & D Center
gv@trace.wisc.edu    http://trace.wisc.edu
FAX 608/262-8848
For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@trace.wisc.edu


-----Original Message-----
From:	P. Coelco [SMTP:pcoelho@u.washington.edu]
Sent:	Tuesday, May 27, 1997 3:26 PM
To:	dd@w3.org
Cc:	w3c-wai-wg@w3.org; po@trace.wisc.edu; pcoelho@u.washington.edu
Subject:	Re: Ability taxonomy bh

Hello Daniel,
	Thank you for your recent messages. I am sorry for my slowness to
respond.
	In Greg's recent e-mail to both of us he makes a point that for
the nonblind or nonhearing disabled population it is the browser and
hardware which need modification rather than the source code (html, xml,
css,etc). This strikes me as true.  Most of the disabilities that I see
are motor or cognitive imparements, sometimes involving partial or
temporary loss of one of the senses, ie vision, touch, etc. Consequently,
with respect to your questions about how the W3C can modify css, xml,
html, etc to suit the disabled as a whole- rather than subpopulations of
disable- the answer may be that you can not.

	I guess what I am most unclear about is what the scope of the WAI
is. I've been to WAI site and read the data there, including the following
from Tim Berners-Lee:

	"Worldwide, there are more than 750 million people with
disabilities. As we move towards a highly connected world, it is critical
that the Web be usable by anyone, regardless of individual capabilities
and disabilities," said Tim Berners-Lee, Director of the W3C and inventor
of the World Wide Web. "The W3C is committed to removing accessibility
barriers for all people with disabilities - including the deaf, blind,
physically challenged, and cognitive or visually impaired. We plan to work
aggressively with government, industry, and community leaders to establish
and attain Web accessibility goals."

	And this from the President of the United States:

	"I commend the World Wide Web Consortium, industry sponsors, and
the Yuri Rubinski Foundation for launching this important project. I am
pleased that the Department of Education will provide funding for the Web
Accessibility Initiative, and that the National Science Foundation is
considering expanding its support for research and development in this
area. My administration is committed to working with these and other
organizations to ensure that this innovative project is a success."

	This language suggests that the efforts made will benefit all of
the disabled. But as I have mentioned, I do not see how this will be
accomplished with the current focus on vision impairments. Most of the
disabled people I see have either motor or cognitive obstacles to
accessing the web. (It goes without saying that they all have financial
obstacles.)

	It would be helpful to me if you could point me toward literature
which better defines what the scope of the WAI will be.

	On the topic of the disabled mailing lists:

	As you know, a recent topic on dev-access was the "taxonomy of
disablity". What seems to have prompted this dialog was the list
subscribers efforts to define the term accessible. This is where I became
interested,because- having followed the dialog and read the subscribers
introductions - there is a clear bias in terms of advocacy for the blind
user on this list. Thus, I felt that the definition of access coined by
this group- the dev-access list subscribers- would reflect their bias and
thus be inconsistent with one of the stated goals of the WAI "... removing
accessability barriers for all people with disabilities..."

	Thank you for your concern. If the topics of taxonomy or
accessablity arise I would be interested in participating in the dialog.
	
------------------------------------------------------------------------  
--------
Paul C. Coelho, MD
Resident Physician (R2)
University of Washington
Dept. of Rehabilitation Medicine
pcoelho@u.washington.edu
coelho.paul@seattle.va.gov
pcoelho@pcoelho.deskmail.washington.edu
Physiatry Forum :
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~pcoelho/netforum/physiatryforum/a.cgi/1
------------------------------------------------------------------------  
-------

Received on Tuesday, 27 May 1997 23:34:49 UTC