On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, M.Cooper wrote:
> IMHO the usages board's "problems" with the term accessibility are
> unfounded.
Martyn,
Speaking only for myself (but as a member of the usage board), I just
wanted to comment on this statement... as far as I recall, the usage
board did not have a problem with the term 'accessibility' per se. I
don't think I did anyway! Rather I had problems with the proposed
definition of 'accessibility' because I did not think it captured the
intended semantics of the proposed new element sufficiently well to
differentiate it from statements about 'usability' and/or 'access
conditions' (in the sense of access rights or access control).
Furthermore, I had problems in understanding how the proposed new element
fitted into the abstract model.
It is probably fair to say that both these "problems" (understanding the
semantics and how the element fitted the abstract model) were compounded
by a lack of any real examples of how the proposed new element would be
used in practice.
Part of the issue was also about whether the proposed element was intended
to be limited to 'Web' resources or whether it was intended to be used to
describe physical resources, such as the accessibility of buildings and
the like.
Like you, my first reaction on seeing the proposal to rename the WG and
new element 'adaptability' was to Google for it (specifically for 'define:
adaptability') and, like you, I came to the conclusion that there was no
(or very little) existing usage of that term in this context. (But I have
to acknowledge that other postings to this list seem to indicate
otherwise.)
FWIW (which isn't much), my personal view is that changing to
'adaptability' makes matters worse rather than better, since, as the last
poster says, being able to adapt something is only a part of the
'accessibility' issue. And that having an element that is sufficiently
general to be able to say things like "No wheelchair access" is a good
thing.
Anyway, in summary... whatever any new term in this area is called, I
think that defining its semantics is going to be very difficult and that
this group may have to spend a lot of time effectively wordsmithing any
new proposal in order to make it clear. And that the clarity of any new
proposal will be significantly improved by supplying several (or more)
examples of how the new term is intended to be used in practice.
Otherwise it is very difficult for people outside the group to understand
how (or if, in the case of the UB) the new term fits into the abstract
model.
Andy
--
Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell +44 1225 383933
Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/
|