In the best of all possible worlds, I would like to see ALL
computers for disabled and non-disabled have full blown
screen reading, voice recognition, etc.. I truly believe there
are many more subtle disabilities that people have or shall
we say variances in ability. This would also serve to encourage mainstream
hardware and software providers to write to these parameters.
In a sense this is inclusion of the non-disabled into technology for
the disabled, I like to think of things on a continuum with
everyone having everything available and then the freedom
to customize to their needs.
This is probably a pipe dream, but it is to me the ultimate
in inclusion.
on 7/11/01 12:06 AM, David Poehlman at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> ah, but then you have to buy computers and put them into the public
> domain and you have to keep the software up to date and the list goes
> on. Lowest common denominator is a bit harsh. why not just design for
> all?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Chapin" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 10:20 AM
> Subject: Re: Web Access; When the Rubber Meets the Road
>
>
> Let me suggest that there's a more fundamental issue here. In order to
> design web accessible web pages, a web designer must have an idea of the
> capabilities of the person accessing the web page.
>
> The standard suggested solution to this is to write for the lowest
> common
> denominator. I would like to suggest that that is not a reasonable
> solution, and is becoming more unreasonable as the available tools get
> better at dealing with sophisticated html code. Why should I go to the
> trouble of building in an interface that's not needed by my non-disabled
> users or even by my disabled users using the correct software? Do I
> have
> any moral responsibility for the software that a user decides to buy?
> Is
> this any different that arguing that I have to provide a telephone
> interface
> to my web site for disabled users who choose not to buy a computer?
>
> I would like to suggest that there is a better solution to the problem.
> We
> need to find a good set of software including browser, screen reader and
> whatever else is needed, buy the rights to it and put it into the public
> domain. In effect, replace lynx as the freebie that we know everybody
> can
> afford with something with a little more horsepower. Once this is done,
> any
> designer who creates a page that runs under this configuration and meets
> some basic standards will satisfy accessibility requirements.
>
> There are, of course, a couple of problems with this. The first is what
> goes into the package. The more we put in, in terms of capabilities,
> the
> easier life becomes for the designers, but the harder it will be to
> create
> the package. The second is identifying and dealing with all possible
> accessibility problems. I can tell you that most people who I talk to
> who
> don't normally consider this area, regard "accessibility" as short hand
> for
> "access for the blind". There will almost certainly be some areas that
> no
> software is going to be able to deal with and we're still going to
> depend of
> standards and guidelines.
>
> Another issue is who's going to pay for the rights, and also for
> updating
> the package as developments warrant. Ideally it should be the web sites
> since they benefit by having the work of assuring accessibility
> simplified.
> However, it's hard to see how we would actually collect from them. More
> likely it would be the government which, since the 508 standards came
> into
> effect, has a motive to try to standardize the process of achieving
> accessibility.
Catherine Alfieri
7 Summer Tree
Pittsford, NY 14534
716-586-1682
Monroe County Women's Disability Network
[log in to unmask]
http://www.mcwdn.org
VirtEd
http://www.mcwdn.org/VirtEd2.html
Personal page
http://www.mcwdn.org/AlfieriMain.html
"See with your heart, Speak with your heart!"
|