RE: Ability taxonomy bh

Greg,
	That sounds like a good approach. Efforts on the client side-
browser/desktop/viewer/player- might be more fruitful in terms of
extending web access into the realm of the motor disabled (my patients). 
	On an interesting aside: I happen to be at an institution which
has adopted thin-clients (NCD's). It seems to me that this type of
hardware, while apparently cheap to own and operate, is going to be
very difficult to make accessable.	 
							paul
	 On Tue, 27 May 1997, Gregg Vanderheiden
wrote:

> 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
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------  
> -------
> 
> 
> 
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Wednesday, 28 May 1997 00:06:48 UTC