for the record, I think Charles meant audience in the sense of users
rather than 'audience' for a resource ... but there is such a DC term
if people want to use it any time.
Liddy
On 12/02/2007, at 8:44 AM, Andy Heath wrote:
>
> Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 23:18:24 +0530, Pearson, Elaine
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Accessibility or inaccessibility depends on the user. It is
>>> toosimplistic to say something is accessible or inaccessible. It
>>> depends onwho is using it. For someone with good vision but
>>> learning difficulties,and alt tag may be of no use at all, nor
>>> would a text only page, whereasit may be very satisfactory for a
>>> blind user. A sight that is largelygraphics or animations may be
>>> great to the user with learningdifficulties but no use to a blind
>>> user. There is no such things asaccessible or inaccessible, so
>>> stating something in negative terms isnot necessarily helpful.
>> Emmanuelle's point is to note that something is deliberately
>> designed in a
>> particular way. Liddy's suggestion of using some of the other DC
>> stuff to
>> explain the audience, etc, is a good one IMHO.
>
> Searching through this thread after the fact (I always keep the
> exciting
> stuff for last) I couldn't find Liddy's mention of DC stuff to
> describe
> audience. However, if it refers to user requirements then I would
> completely agree, there is a desperate need for widely-accepted scheme
> to describe these IMHO - something having at least the worldwide
> recognition that DC has.
>
> Cheers
>
> andy
> --
> ___________________
> Andy Heath
> http://axelrod.plus.com
|