Re: 10.2.3
Re: 10.2.3
- Subject: Re: 10.2.3
- From: Bill Cheeseman <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 14:35:51 -0500
on 02-12-20 11:19 AM, Mike Engber at email@hidden wrote:
>
Which behavior is correct has
>
not been decided. In general, accessibility only makes available things
>
that are visible in the UI - so that would be an argument for not
>
returning the windows when the app is hidden.
The proposition that "accessibility only makes available things that are
visible in the UI" presents an interesting philosophical and legal dilemma.
I would argue that a more subtle interpretation of the requirements of
Section 508 is necessary. Apologies in advance for the length of this, but I
think it's an important issue. I know you do, too.
The proposition that the accessibility interface should coincide with the
standard interface is attractive because it is simple and direct. It leaves
nothing to interpretation. If a certain functionality isn't available in the
standard interface, then accessibility doesn't require us to make it
available in the accessibility interface.
I submit that this proposition can't withstand analysis. Pushed to an
extreme, it says we can offer full accessibility without doing anything
different. It has the fatal defect that, by definition, it can't be
achieved. It is self-contradictory. It makes Section 508 meaningless.
The whole point of accessibility is that disabled users can't take advantage
of the standard interface. To make the computer accessible requires
providing a non-standard interface. To do this requires making functionality
available in the accessibility interface that is not available in the
standard interface. We just can't avoid having to do something different.
So interpretation is required whether we like it or not.
Sometimes interpretation is easy and obvious. For example, some users are
unable to use their hands, so they can't type using a standard keyboard.
Accessibility therefore requires an interface that lets them "type" without
using their hands. This is so even though a standard computer doesn't let
users type without using a keyboard. I don't think anybody would say that
"accessibility only makes input available that can be typed using the
keyboard UI - so that would be an argument for not allowing keyboard-less
typing."
Yet that is the physical accessibility equivalent, roughly, of the vision
accessibility proposition that "accessibility only makes available things
that are visible in the UI - so that would be an argument for not returning
the windows when the app is hidden."
Issues involving vision or hearing impairment seem to be less obvious to
most people than those involving physical impairment. I have noticed that
most people without vision impairment make assumptions about the
"visibility" of objects (that is, the ability to detect their presence
without touching them) that, upon deeper reflection, are unwarranted. I am
colorblind, for example. People scoff at the idea that this is a handicap,
but it has significant impact on my daily life and it does have legal
standing under Section 508. I have been amazed at how many people continue
to think it's perfectly OK to color unlabeled buttons on a Web page red and
green to differentiate their functions, even after being reminded that about
20% of Caucasian males can't tell them apart. It takes a surprising amount
of effort to help people with normal color vision to "get it." Color is
simply irrelevant to me (well, red and green, anyway). You shouldn't use it
by itself to differentiate functions on a computer screen (or a traffic
light, to cite a more important application of the principle). I would
reject the proposition that "accessibility only makes available colors that
are used in the API - so that would be an argument for not providing
different colors or alternatives to color."
Similarly, whether windows are visible or hidden in the standard interface
is utterly irrelevant to a blind user. The purpose of hiding windows in the
standard interface is to give the sighted user a way to reduce visual
clutter. A blind person doesn't need hidden windows. In fact, it could be
argued that a blind user should not have to suffer the additional difficulty
in using the machine that would be caused by making an application
effectively inoperable, just because sighted users might benefit from hiding
it. A similar argument could be advanced in favor of making menus accessible
even when they aren't open -- that is, visible.
I realize that my examples aren't perfect and that counterarguments could be
developed. My only point is that accessibility is a very hard subject, and
superficially attractive rules are often wrong once you think them through
in light of the objectives of Section 508. I believe Section 508 requires
much more than a literal, one-to-one correspondence in functionality. I say
this both as a computer user and as a lawyer.
--
Bill Cheeseman - email@hidden
Quechee Software, Quechee, Vermont, USA
http://www.quecheesoftware.com
The AppleScript Sourcebook -
http://www.AppleScriptSourcebook.com
Vermont Recipes -
http://www.stepwise.com/Articles/VermontRecipes
Croquet Club of Vermont -
http://members.valley.net/croquetvermont
_______________________________________________
accessibility-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
| References: | |
| | >Re: 10.2.3 (From: Mike Engber <email@hidden>) |