E-mail List Archives
Thread: What is Web Accessibility?
Number of posts in this thread: 15 (In chronological order)
From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Thu, Mar 23 2006 1:40PM
Subject: What is Web Accessibility?
No previous message | Next message →
On 3/22/06, Austin, Darrel < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> > No, web accessibility in a general sense is about disabled
> > populations.
> That's the biggest problem with a lot of current accessibility thinking.
No, it's not.
WAY to many people assume that accessibility issues mean 'accomodating
> blind people' and fail to see the bigger picture.
While limiting it to blind people only is a problem, so also is the idea
that we can somehow magically eliminate the concept of people with
disabilities from "web accessibility."
My personal definition of web accessibility is:
> Striving to make more of your content usable for more people (ie,
> customers) on more devices.
It's nice that you have your own definition, and it's nice you care about
more devices. But ultimately, web accessibility is about making sure that
people with disabilities can get access.
There are a multitude of benefits for other people from web accessibility,
just as curbcuts for wheelchairs also help people with shopping carts,
strollers, and wheeled luggage.
But the curbcuts weren't put in for moms with strollers; they were put in
for people with wheelchairs, because the people with disabilities have a
moral, legal, and ethical right to access. (Moms with strollers DON'T.)
--Kynn
From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Thu, Mar 23 2006 1:50PM
Subject: RE: What is Web Accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →
> Because "accessible for all" is brought out as a counter to
> "accessibility is about people with disabilities" --
Umm...no, it's not a counter. It's 'in addition to'.
-Darrel
From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Thu, Mar 23 2006 3:10PM
Subject: Re: What is Web Accessibility?
← Previous message | Next message →
On 3/23/06, Sandra Andrews < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Isn't "universal design" about making things accessible to everyone,
> including those with disabilities and moms with strollers?
"Universal design" possibly could be, although when it comes down to it, web
accessibility -- and curbcuts -- are about people with disabilities.
--Kynn
From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Thu, Mar 23 2006 3:20PM
Subject: What is Web Accessibility? From the W3C
← Previous message | Next message →
A lot of people seem to be looking at me as if I've grown a third eye for
stating that Web Accessibility Is About People With Disabilities.
Allow me to quote from the W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative's web site:
(more comments by me after the quote)
http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/accessibility.php
BEGIN QUOTE
What is Web Accessibility
*Web accessibility means that people with disabilities can use the Web*.
More specifically, Web accessibility means that people with disabilities can
perceive, understand, navigate, and interact with the Web, and that they can
contribute to the Web. Web accessibility also benefits others, including older
people <http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/soc.html#of>; with changing abilities due
to aging.
Web accessibility encompasses all disabilities that affect access to the
Web, including visual, auditory, physical, speech, cognitive, and
neurological disabilities. The document "*How People with Disabilities Use
the Web*" describes how different disabilities affect Web
use<http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/#diff>;and includes
scenarios
of people with disabilities using the
Web<http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/#usage>;.
Millions of people have disabilities that affect their use of the Web.
Currently most Web sites and Web
software<http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/accessibility.php#software>;have
*accessibility barriers* that make it difficult or impossible for many
people with disabilities to use the Web. As more accessible Web sites and
software become available, people with disabilities are able to use and
contribute to the Web more effectively.
Web accessibility also *benefits* people *without* disabilities. For
example, a key principle of Web accessibility is designing Web sites and
software that are flexible to meet different user needs, preferences, and
situations. This *flexibility* also benefits people *without* disabilities
in certain situations, such as people using a slow Internet connection,
people with "temporary disabilities" such as a broken arm, and people with
changing abilities due to aging. The document "Developing a Web
Accessibility Business Case for Your
Organization<http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/Overview>;"
describes many different benefits of Web accessibility, including *benefits
for organizations*.
END QUOTE
Someone in private email angrily accused me of *gasp* saying web
accessibility is about disabled people only (and I've added "but it benefits
other people as a side effect" repeatedly), and demanded "Who says?"
The answer is that the W3C says.
Likewise, the WebAIM site also talks about web accessibility as being
something about people with disabilities:
http://www.webaim.org/intro/
I'm not off in looney land here, folks. What I am saying is basic knowledge
about Web Accessibility and what it is, and isn't. Yes, web accessibility
benefits everyone, but it's a side effect. Web accessibility is about people
with disabilities first.
--Kynn
PS: No, I haven't suddenly "turned into Joe Clark." Check the WAI archives.
I've ALWAYS been like this.
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Thu, Mar 23 2006 5:10PM
Subject: Re: What is Web Accessibility? From the W3C
← Previous message | Next message →
Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> A lot of people seem to be looking at me as if I've grown a third eye
> for stating that Web Accessibility Is About People With Disabilities.
It's not the third eye...it's the horns on your forehead that bother us ;)
Seriously though, it's interesting that this discussion has arisen here,
as we had a very similar one not so long ago on the Accessify forum; I
also had a long heated discussion with an alpha-geek at work who
insisted that, because a particular site didn't work well in Konqueror
on Linux, he'd be able to sue the company responsible under the
Disability Discrimination Act (so again the same "accessibility is about
making a site work on all platforms/browsers).
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
___________
re
From: zara
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 9:40AM
Subject: RE: What is Web Accessibility? From the W3C
← Previous message | Next message →
> Seriously though, it's interesting that this discussion has arisen here,
> as we had a very similar one not so long ago on the Accessify forum; I
> also had a long heated discussion with an alpha-geek at work who
> insisted that, because a particular site didn't work well in Konqueror
> on Linux, he'd be able to sue the company responsible under the
> Disability Discrimination Act (so again the same "accessibility is about
> making a site work on all platforms/browsers).
I have read this thread with much interest as I gave a radio interview yesterday morning for a local station where I had to explain what accessibility was and what the difference was between accessibility and universal access (which may explain, besides my lack of coffee, why I was distracted enough to reply to this list while thinking I was replying to someone else). I get asked this question a lot and here is how I explain it.
Accessibility is related to how usable a resource is for persons with disabilities, regardless of the type of disability or the means to overcome or compensate for that disability.
Universal access is an ensemble of conditions that relate to : availability, connectivity, interoperability, affordability, culture (as in language), knowledge and training, etc., *and* accessibility. This is much in line with how the W3C defines "access for all".
Often, people use accessibility as an interchangeable term for universal access. It is not. Granted, accessibility is a subjective notion but it has clearly always been about persons with disabilities and long before the Web came along. I often say "say what you mean". If you mean availability or connectivity or affordability or any other term mentioned above, then just say it.
Can Web accessibility benefit those without disabilities (as in the recognized notion of what a disability means) ? Yes it may to some degree but it goes much further than that and is much more demanding in terms of skills and knowledge and costs ; I do not think I need to explain to people here how complex accessibility really is.
And although I understand that it can often be easier to sell accessibility by defining it more in terms of universal access, it is a false definition and ultimately could be a disservice to those whose needs it is supposed to address. It can open the door (as I have often seen) to picking and choosing how much accessibility will be achieved. Is a particular guideline or checkpoint too "specialized" ? Will it benefit a smaller number than something else that is more beneficial to a wide range of users whether they present a disability or not ? Well lets go with the latter because it is easier to justify in terms of investment.
We do not all live in countries where accessibility is a recognized right and where all these things are clearly or reasonably defined by legislation and codes. Some of us have to rely more on people really getting what accessibility truly means and wanting to do the right thing (and of course having the means to do so) which hopefully will lead to a recognition of rights and clearly defined standards.
As a person with a disability, I can probably be considered as hardly objective but I must admit that I always find it disturbing when something we have worked so hard for and so long for being appropriated by others in this way and our rights being conditional to what is convenient for "stroller-pushers".
Catherine
--
Catherine Roy, consultante
www.catherine-roy.net
514.525.9490
From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 10:20AM
Subject: RE: What is Web Accessibility? From the W3C
← Previous message | Next message →
> As a person with a disability, I can probably be considered
> as hardly objective but I must admit that I always find it
> disturbing when something we have worked so hard for and so
> long for being appropriated by others in this way and our
> rights being conditional to what is convenient for "stroller-pushers".
Catherine:
Good post. I don't disagree with most of it (though we could quibble on
the definition of somewhat subjective quasi-synonymous terms).
The only thing to comment on is that last sentence of yours. Kynn
brought it up as a response to my comment, and, though I've tried to
clarify it, I guess I've failed.
I want to emphasize that in no way does talking about accessibility as
more of a universal access concept (as you describe) make the issue
conditional for only one group (or, at least, is shouldn't). My point
that I've tried to communicate is that accessibility isn't or, at least,
shouldn't be about including one group at the exclusion of the other.
It's not JUST about strollers, and nor is is just about wheelchairs.
There's nothing to be gained by excluding either of those groups.
The argument that a building should have a way to enter the front door
without using the stairs because of a social responsibility to
accommodate those in wheelchairs is fine.
The argument that a building should have a way to enter the front door
without using the stairs because it benefits the stroller pushers is
fine.
Ideally, one wanting to spread the ideals of accessibility/universal
access would bring up both benefits in the same conversation.
All IMHO, of course...
-Darrel
From: Arnold, Tim
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 10:50AM
Subject: RE: What is Web Accessibility? From the W3C
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi all,
I mostly lurk and read. I finally have something to say, and apologize
if I come across as a buttinsky. This has, at times, seemed to be a
pretty charged discussion, and my aim is certainly not to further that.
I just care very deeply about Web Accessibility, and spend a lot of time
trying to convince people that it's the right thing to do. Even people
who agree with me seem to loose their commitment when they really see
what it's all about.
So, here I go...
Darrel Said:
"The argument that a building should have a way to enter the front door
without using the stairs because of a social responsibility to
accommodate those in wheelchairs is fine."
Absolutely! And this would be defined as "Accessibility," though I'd
say it considerably more strongly than "fine."
Darrel Said:
"The argument that a building should have a way to enter the front door
without using the stairs because it benefits the stroller pushers is
fine."
Yes! But this does not fall under "Accessibility," and certainly is a
"fine" requirement.
Darrel Said:
"Ideally, one wanting to spread the ideals of accessibility/universal
access would bring up both benefits in the same conversation."
Very true. But let's not change the definition of "Accessibility" to
include everything else simply so that we can use a single word, or
because it's easier to "sell" to clients. To do so is a disservice to
those living with disabilities; we (and by "we" I mean designers
concerned with accessibility) have been working too hard to get
"Accessibility" recognized as being important to now say that the needs
of disabled citizens are about on a par with people on roller blades.
The mother with a stroller can always opt to not use a stroller -- hell,
I got through two kids without using one of the heinous things;). A
person with a spinal cord injury who uses a wheelchair doesn't have the
same choice. They are not the same thing and should be called what they
are. If we just keep saying it, and using the correct words for it,
then others will learn.
Like Zara said:
"'say what you mean.' If you mean availability or connectivity or
affordability or any other term mentioned above, then just say it."
Darrel said:
"My point that I've tried to communicate is that accessibility isn't or,
at least, shouldn't be about including one group at the exclusion of the
other. It's not JUST about strollers, and nor is is just about
wheelchairs. There's nothing to be gained by excluding either of those
groups."
The argument I and others have tried to put forth is not about excluding
anyone's needs. It's about calling things what they are, being clear,
and stating over and over again why they are important. Until someone
listens. The problem is in applying "Accessibility" with too broad a
brush. It really doesn't include strollers. That's not to say that
strollers are unimportant, it's just to say that are not about "access."
Talk about them together with clients if it will help, but don't tell a
disabled person that their issues are the same as anyone else with
wheels. It's offensive not to listen to what the people you claim to be
advocating for say. Basically, when someone says, "As a person with a
disability who has been working on this for a long time..." it's not
helpful to say "yes, but.."
My apologies if any of this seems to be directed at anyone personally.
I'm using Darrel's comments because they were made a few minutes ago,
and seem to represent things that others have been saying.
Cheers,
Tim
__________________________
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 11:10AM
Subject: Re: What is Web Accessibility? From the W3C
← Previous message | Next message →
Austin, Darrel wrote:
> The argument that a building should have a way to enter the front door
> without using the stairs because of a social responsibility to
> accommodate those in wheelchairs is fine.
>
> The argument that a building should have a way to enter the front door
> without using the stairs because it benefits the stroller pushers is
> fine.
Yes, but the difference is that in the second case (in isolation), a
person with a stroller wouldn't be able to sue the building's owner
under a disability legislation.
> Ideally, one wanting to spread the ideals of accessibility/universal
> access would bring up both benefits in the same conversation.
The first example would be one of accessibility, while the second would
help to illustrate that accessibility also has collateral benefits for
all users, not just those with a disability.
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
___________
re
From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 11:40AM
Subject: Re: What is Web Accessibility? From the W3C
← Previous message | Next message →
Zara and Tim have both said it better than I did. :)
--Kynn
From: zara
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 12:40PM
Subject: RE: What is Web Accessibility? From the W3C
← Previous message | Next message →
Darrel, thank you for your response.
> ... (though we could quibble on
> the definition of somewhat subjective quasi-synonymous terms).
We could quibble but that is just the point. There is a lot of confusion surrounding the concept of accessibility in general and it is used by other fields and that sometimes does or does not help but in the disability field at least, accessibility is clearly defined as a persons with disabilities issue and I feel that it is important for us in this field to agree on what we mean if we are ever to hope that others will understand what we mean. We also need to look at the long term effects of how we use this term. That is what I was trying to address.
> The only thing to comment on is that last sentence of yours. Kynn
> brought it up as a response to my comment, and, though I've tried to
> clarify it, I guess I've failed.
>
> I want to emphasize that in no way does talking about accessibility as
> more of a universal access concept (as you describe) make the issue
> conditional for only one group (or, at least, is shouldn't). My point
> that I've tried to communicate is that accessibility isn't or, at least,
> shouldn't be about including one group at the exclusion of the other.
> It's not JUST about strollers, and nor is is just about wheelchairs.
> There's nothing to be gained by excluding either of those groups.
Let me just stress that my last paragraph and particularly my use of the term "stroller-pushers" was not directed at anyone in particular, it was used in this thread and is often used as an argument elsewhere. It is an efficient image but I could have referred to mobile phone users for example to try to convey what I meant.
I do live in the real world and I am not against stating collateral benefits of accessibility when appropriate. However, as I said, I do have a problem with my community's rights and needs being conditional upon those collateral benefits as I feel that it may not always necessarily contribute to recognition of true equality and hope people keep that in mind when advocating for accessibility.
Catherine
--
Catherine Roy, consultante
www.catherine-roy.net
514.525.9490
From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 1:10PM
Subject: RE: What is Web Accessibility? From the W3C
← Previous message | Next message →
> My apologies if any of this seems to be directed at anyone personally.
> I'm using Darrel's comments because they were made a few
> minutes ago, and seem to represent things that others have
> been saying.
It's a lively discussion. No need to apologize. ;o)
I concede that lots of people would prefer to maintain that the term
'accessibility' has the sole definition of 'to accommodate those with
particular physical or mental disabilities'.
As such, at least for this list, I probably need to start using the term
'universal access' and consider accessibility a part of that broader
concept when debating. ;o)
FYI, Apple has long used 'unversal access' to identify its control panel
specifically targetted at people that 'have difficulties with
seeing|hearing|keyboard|mouse'. Another blending of terms, it seems.
A favorite quite of mine from Fine Homebuilding also seems to mix the
terms:
http://mnteractive.com/archive/universal-design-in-wood-and-pixels/
So, not saying one is right/wrong, just that it appears that getting
everyone to agree on the specific meanings of these two terms may not be
that easy.
-Darrel
From: zara
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 1:20PM
Subject: RE: What is Web Accessibility? From the W3C
← Previous message | Next message →
> So, not saying one is right/wrong, just that it appears that getting
> everyone to agree on the specific meanings of these two terms may not be
> that easy.
I totally agree with you ;)
--
Catherine Roy, consultante
www.catherine-roy.net
514.525.9490
From: Helen A
Date: Sat, Mar 25 2006 3:00AM
Subject: Re: What is Web Accessibility? From the W3C
← Previous message | Next message →
At 18:42 23/03/2006, Kynn wrote:
><snip>
>BEGIN QUOTE
><snip>
>Millions of people have disabilities that affect their use of the
>Web. Currently most Web sites and
><http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/accessibility.php#software>;Web software
>have accessibility barriers that make it difficult or impossible for
>many people with disabilities to use the Web. As more accessible Web
>sites and software become available, people with disabilities are
>able to use and contribute to the Web more effectively.
><snip>
What really peeves me about websites is the tendancy to have dark
text on dark backgrounds, or pull-down menus that do not stay open
long enough for me to move my mouse down onto the next level of the
menu. Both can be avoided but aren't. I have poor motor control and
use the keyboard mouse, and in terms of short-circuiting colour
problems I resort to turning colours off in my browser but I resent having to!
Helen
From: Helen A
Date: Sat, Mar 25 2006 3:10AM
Subject: Re: What is Web Accessibility?
← Previous message | No next message
At 20:03 23/03/2006, Kynn wrote:
That's my entire point. It took an act of congress to pass a law for
people to start caring about accessibility.
What about those of us outside the US Kynn? :)