Subject: IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria - accessibility

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:22:19 -0700

I think is clear that we should add some text on this, such as:

The venue should be well prepared in respect to accessibility conditions for
the different able.

Any comments ?

Regards,
Jordi

************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Information available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:27:00 -0400

>>>>> "JORDI" == JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]> writes:

    JORDI> I think is clear that we should add some text on this, such
    JORDI> as: The venue should be well prepared in respect to
    JORDI> accessibility conditions for the different able.

Please don't use the term differently abled.  If you must use the
term, please define it.

I think if you are going to have accessibility requirements they need
to be clear enough that participants can know what to expect.
Otherwise you're not helping the participants and you're wasting
everyone's time on political correctness.

--Sam

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:48:10 -0700

> everyone's time on political correctness.

"Needs to be wheelchair accessible" is reasonably well defined, and not too 
much to ask (I think).

I'm not all that clear on what requirements are clear enough to make sense 
for other types of disabilities.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:27:11 -0400

>>>>> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:

    Harald> "Needs to be wheelchair accessible" is reasonably well
    Harald> defined, and not too much to ask (I think).

Agreed.

    Harald> I'm not all that clear on what requirements are clear
    Harald> enough to make sense for other types of disabilities.

Nor am I.  For example I don't think we want to provide interpreters
for people who need sign language.  Similarly there would be a lot of
requirements to make a facility sufficiently accessible that I could
get around without help.  I don't think it would be a reasonable
requirement to do that: it would be expensive, it would limit facility
selection and people are sufficiently helpful that it's just not
needed.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:04:05 +0200

Would it not be sufficient for the venue to comply with the Americans 
with Disabilities Act (regardless of whether it's in the U.S.)?

Eliot

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:55:50 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Eliot Lear" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Sam Hartman" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 11:04 PM
> Subject: Re: IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria - accessibility
>
...

National regulations for accessibility vary considerably.
I think picking any one country's regulations as a baseline
would ultimately be counter-productive.  I think it is sufficient
to remind potential hosts that accessibility is a consideration,
and leave it at that.

Randy