- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:52:56 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13432 --- Comment #8 from John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> 2011-09-06 19:52:54 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) > > (I asked John for this information by e-mail but did not get a reply.) FWIW, I *did* reply to Ian off list on Aug 22nd, and the exchange was less than fruitful. "Political Correctness" and sensitivity to the various communities of people with disabilities is not a binary checklist that can be applied generically by the Editor to accessibility related discussions. However, I have reprinted a White Paper (with permission) that was originally produced by the Active Living Alliance a few years back that might be of some help: it can be found at http://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/soap/resources/whitepapers/dignity Specific to this bug, the strategies of users who are Blind (versus users who may have any number of other vision related disabilities) as they interact with multi-media content will often be different, based upon the single criteria of having some vision versus having no vision, thus there is a distinction there that should be acknowledged. The same is true for users who are profoundly deaf versus users who have other types of hearing issues - once again the distinction generally being at the point of total versus partial non-hearing. For those who are profoundly deaf, there is also a socio-political distinction due to that community's use of sign language. The proposed Editorial change in this bug has *no bearing* on the technology. It was provided as feedback to the Accessibility Task Force media sub-team by subject matter experts and members of the afore-mentioned communities, and forwarded to the W3C Editor to ensure we communicate respectfully with the various communities we interact with. What should have been a graceful acknowledgement of some political sensitivity by the Editor, has instead become a back-and-forth exchange over what appears to be a need to retain full authorship of every single line of the Specification. Can the Editor explain to the Working Group why making this editorial change is so controversial? Is there a significant (or even trivial) impact on the technology being addressed in this Standard that makes this change onerous? -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2011 19:52:57 UTC