Hi, Jonathan-
As usual, you are twisting the facts to suit your claim.
Your claim was that 20% of people in the UK are functionally illiterate
(I think that figure is high, but I've seen a news story that suggests
something similar, so I'll grant you some validity there... other
sources say that the UK has a 99% literacy rate, but I don't have all
the facts, nor do I think you do). Let's concentrate on the UK, and on
that figure.
Of those, only a small percentage will have a learning disability or
speech impediment. For the great majority, one or more alternate media
(including phones, or VOIP for the Web) is absolutely appropriate. For
the rest, no one solution will suit all of them; we have to introduce a
variety of technologies and techniques to compensate. For some of those
solutions, the problem will need standardization, and that's where W3C
(and other organizations, and governments) step in; for others,
applications making the best use of those technologies, as well as other
custom technologies, play a larger role.
You are actually introducing a red herring by throwing out and
conflating nonsense statistics. The point is not to meet the needs of
20%, or 80%, or 90% of people... it is to make considerations for as
many people as possible. Throwing numbers at the problem is like the
Mythical Man-Month. We need better-engineered and novel solutions, not
more hacks.
But not all features of all technologies have to meet the needs of every
individual. Take SVG for example: no matter how many accessibility
features we build into SVG to compensate for the fact that some people
can't see, those people still won't be able to see it. Most of the spec
will simply be useless to those people, unfortunately. But that doesn't
mean that we should abandon the technology or those features... rather,
we should build in adequate compensations, such as ARIA offers for
form-type controls.
Despite your claims, WAI and other groups do reach out to a variety of
people and groups, some directly, and some through representatives or
agents. I respect your work as one of those agents. Your motives are
good; your methods are lousy.
Regards-
-Doug
Jonathan Chetwynd wrote (on 7/22/08 12:24 PM):
Philip,
it's true to say that yes I do mean exactly what you say.
It's not enough to engage developers in creating specifications.
end-users, that is ordinary people have different requirements, and
people who are illiterate are a special case.
David Woolley has a great description of the W3C 'abuse of process' here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2008JulSep/0013.html
and I am pressing the case with Tim and Ian, in a thread here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jul/0036.html
Doug's attempt to suggest the suitability of other media is sadly strong
evidence of his failure to understand and engage with the people or the
issue.
for instance many people with a learning disability cannot use a phone
independently, and may have a speech impediment.
Similarly the suggestion that WAI is meeting their needs is sadly
confounded by the formal objection to WCAG2 and the very slow progress
in this area.
just an example of one users complex work pattern:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/disable/computer.html
not someone with learning disabilities, but...
regards
Jonathan Chetwynd
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.openicon.org/
+44 (0) 20 7978 1764
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
Note that even content that conforms at the highest level (AAA) will not
be accessible to individuals with all types, degrees, or combinations of
disability, particularly in the cognitive language and learning areas.
On 20 Jul 2008, at 10:03, Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) wrote:
Doug Schepers wrote:
W3C has activities for accessibility (several WAI groups), video,
voice browsers, e-government (including education and community
outreach)... all of these things address your concerns. So, your
claim doesn't seem to match the facts.
I think (and forgive me if I am wrong) that what Jonathan means
by "engage with"[1] is to actually talk to, and work with, such
people, to ascertain at first hand how best they can be "empowered"[2].
Am I correct, Jonathan ?
Philip TAYLOR
--------
[1], [2] : Yet more modern management-speak. Sadly these
words, and their friends, are now so commonplace that it
is becoming increasingly difficult, when tempted to use
them, to :
Prefer the familiar word to the far-fetched.
Prefer the concrete word to the abstract.
Prefer the single word to the circumlocution.
Prefer the short word to the long.
Prefer the Saxon word to the Romance.
as H W Fowler so wisely recommended in /The King's English/.
