a bit off-topic (was: Re: [tdf-discuss] accessibility mailing list)

Hi Christophe, hi Jonathon!

Am Dienstag, den 30.11.2010, 11:42 +0100 schrieb Christophe Strobbe:
> Hi,
>
> At 18:13 29/11/2010, jonathon wrote:
> > On 11/29/2010 02:14 PM, Friedrich Strohmaier wrote:
> > (...)
> > > It's only solution is to get Your tools and Your communication 
> > partners help You achieving that task.
> >
> > LibO intrinsically fails Section 508 criteria.  Given how low that bar
> > is, I suspect that any country whose a11y legislation has any merit,
> > should automatically disqualify LibO from consideration.

Mmh, why do we fail? At least for OOo, I'm sure that we complied to the
requirements, since OOo was used within the US administration. So what
is missing for LibO?

> The USA are ahead of most other countries (including much of Europe) 
> with regard to accessibility legislation.
> (The EU wants to create a standard for accesibility requirements for 
> ICT in public procurement, but I don't expect a final standard before 2012.)

Good thing :-)


> > > This can be shurely be demanded by someone willing tho help development.
> > > Someone looking for advice is a completely different story and 
> > should be handled as such.
> >
> > When it comes to a11y, the first step is to learn if the program works
> > with the software that sort of succeeds in providing the data they need,
> > so that the program can almost be used.
>
> Just to make sure that we are all on the same page: people with 
> disabilities do not always use assistive technology. Sometimes it is 
> just a matter of setting high contrast and bigger font size in the 
> OS, which any app should than inherit. For others, keyboard access is 
> essential.

Well said!

And to Jonathan - for the majority of our users, the current UI has
major drawbacks (e.g. numerous unnecessary modal dialogs, minor
intelligence in toolbars, plain controls, ...). But for people requiring
assistive technology, this is pretty helpful - our UI is made of very
simple elements that can be addressed easily

> In addition: older people can also benefit from accessibility 
> features software, but they don't want to be considered as "people 
> with disabilities"? (Decreased vision? "That's just part of getting 
> old, dear.")

Correct! And to emphasize that - what does "older" mean today? Given the
demographical change and the today's life expectancy, it is just a
matter of fact that any kind of technology has to support broad target
groups. Skipping the infamous mistakes that some people started to
develop things that even looked like being made for "old" people, today
we are back on track with "design for all" (but I still wonder why we
need such slogans for things that should be common sense ...).

Looking at the content of my mail, I should say my "2 ct".

Cheers,
Christoph



-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***