While I'm sure everyone on this list is committed to accessibility, we are a
minority, and I'm sure we all have our war stories of battles lost. But it
improves bit by bit, both in terms of acceptance of the idea of
accessibility, and the tools to make it happen.
I agree with that, by and large, but I'd make this points that relates
directly to standards.
While people with specific access needs understandably tend to think only in
terms of their own specific needs (that's based on 10 years working in
disability services, BTW), people with less specific access needs (most of
us) still tend to think in terms of specific disabilities, impairments and
handicaps and how to address them. I feel there's a lot of room to think
more about universal access. A physical example might be providing ramp
access to buildings - it benefits anyone who can't handle steps: parents
with strollers, older people, young kids, pregnant women, people with
temporary physical impairments, as well as people in wheelchairs. We're
talking about a group of users then who - while they may not identify as
such - have access needs that can be met through a policy of providing
universal access. They may well not be the minority.
But you're right in saying we're the minority, in that a) web developers and
designers are a minority of the general population and b) those of us who
even think about access needs are in turn a minority.
I guess my point is that I believe we can achieve greater (and faster)
acceptance of the idea of accessibility by focusing on universal access
rather than disability access.
A direct example of this might be thinking about screen readers as not just
being for visually impaired people but for anyone who can't read well,
including people who find it easier to hear English rather than read it.
Broadening our access definitions may well affect how standards are
developed, which ones are supported by people like us and how we code for
them.
The lack of mention of access needs and standards in the Web 2.0 video
disappointed me, and I think it's an indicator of limited thinking in a
so-called "explanation".
Ricky
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
