W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > September 2011

[Bug 13432] Editorial changes to The Video element (1 of 5)

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 21:15:15 +0000
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1R8ezj-0006Uk-4k@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13432

--- Comment #11 from John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> 2011-09-27 21:15:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> 
> Agreed. There is also a distinction between those who have dyscalculia and
> those who do not. And those who are susceptible to seizures and those who are
> not. And so on (I gave quite a long list in the e-mail I sent you). My question
> remains the same: how do I know which of these groups to include and which to
> just gloss over as "those with other physical or cognitive disabilities"?

Ian, if you are looking for a black and white list of when and when not to
mention a particular community of disabled users in specific circumstances,
such a list does not exist. Further I am not going to play that game with you
here, or anywhere else for that matter. 


> 
> I listed the blind and deaf explicitly because those represent two demographics
> clearly in need of special consideration when it comes to making video
> accessible, which are widely recognised as such, and which are not in the
> slightest bit confusing to authors who have never thought of the topic before.

I don't think that adding low-vision and hard-of-hearing user groups to this
editorial text will be any more confusing to authors, and also signals that
even within the "hearing impaired" and "visually impaired" communities that a
one-size-fits-all solution is neither appropriate nor sufficient. I give
authors enough credit (and apparently more than you do) to understand the
difference between blind and low-vision users without being "confused", and
specifically mentioning each also enhances their understanding that those 2
groups will require different adaptive strategies.


> 
> Adding more demographics is a risky proposition: we have to balance making such
> authors realise the problem is even bigger than just the deaf and blind,
> without making them think the problem is so big as to be insurmountable, which
> might lead them to give up and not provide any accessibility features at all.
> 
> In the current text, I tried to strike this balance by listing the blind and
> deaf explicitly, and then pointing out that there are others to consider also.
> This provides the clear message mentioned above, while also suggesting to
> authors who are open-minded that there is more information they could find
> which would address even more groups of people and thus be even better, without
> scaring away those authors who are not ready for such a realisation.

Thank you for a real world example of your "Handling People" strategy:

   "STAGE 2: There is a situation, but nothing needs doing."

http://ian.hixie.ch/bible/handling-people

> 
> 
> But again I ask: if we're going to be politically correct, how do I determine
> which of the many groups who need something here should be mentioned
> explicitly, and which should be glossed over?

The revised wording at the root of this bug was suggested by NCAM, who are
widely regarded as both the pioneers of accessible media, as well as global
leaders in that space. Their editorial advice is sound and appropriate, but
seemingly you are unwilling to learn from experts, preferring instead to
proudly assert you are "righter" than they. Ian, I tire of your trolling and
refuse to take your bait. 

I will consult with the Accessibility Task Force whether to escalate this to an
Tracker Issue and seek their consensus on next steps.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2011 21:15:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:44 GMT