[html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) ?

[Joshue O Connor]

Hi Phil,

Philip Taylor (Webmaster) wrote:
> <quote>
> I was intrigued (and, I admit, surprised) to find that
> both WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 (Draft) both unashamedly state
> that the underlying aim [of the accessibility guidelines]
> is to :
> 
>         1.0 : [Make web] content  accessible to people with disabilities.
>         2.0 : [Make web] accessible to a wider range of people with
> disabilities [...]
> </quote>

Gez wrote:
>Why should they feel ashamed?

Philip Taylor (Webmaster) wrote:
> Maybe because it is an insular, parochial,
> perspective ?  

It's not insular nor parochial at all. WCAG answered a very real need.
People with disabilities were being left behind as web technologies
evolved. So WCAG was a real answer to a real need. Using politically
correct language (to talk about as Gez mentions 'generic' terms like
'universality' etc as that's what they are, merely generic terms) was
not the way to go. At least not the road to travel to come up with real
solutions for real issues that impacted positively on the lives of
people with disabilities.

>Would you be happy to see
> a similar statement in an analogous document
> that claims that accessibility is about making
> web content accessible to black people, or
> white people, or Muslims, or Jains, or Catholics ?

Of course not. That's ridiculous and, I am sorry, but in this context
also facetious.

> Surely the whole basis of our belief is that
> the web should be accessible to /all/, not to
> just one disadvantaged group ?

Of course. However, it's not something that will just *happen*. No
matter how science may consciously or unconsciously hold the belief
(though it unscientific to talk to belief, right?) of blind progressive
Darwinian evolution as a plausible explanation for mans development I
think it is reasonable to suggest that any working system has a
designer, an architect who oversees how a system evolves. There are
therefore parallels with technology, if not even some deeper analogous
connections. What I am trying to say is that, the devil is in the
details. How, will it work exactly? While using terms like
'universality' and 'design for all' etc sound great. What do they really
mean and how will they work? I am a rational person and by professional
a technical one, so therefore every idea that is to fly has some
technical rational to back it up, or else logic dictates that it will
not work properly. It is the same with accessibility.

I don't have a problem with the idea that accessibility is primarily
about making interfaces etc accessible to people with disabilities. This
gives me a specific point of reference to work from. Of course, I
include everyone in the /ideal/ catchment but again the devil is in the
details, and those that most need accessible user interfaces and benefit
from structured content etc are often the most vulnerable, are users of
assistive technology that needs correct semantics etc and also the ones
who, when there is a lack of these things, are negatively effected the most.

Josh