- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:53:09 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13432 --- Comment #12 from Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> 2011-09-27 23:53:09 UTC --- > > 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 [...] I could live with either wording, but let's not make this a flame war and stick to the technical issues at hand. Ian asks for an editorial rule for authoring this an other aspects of the specification in a manner that is appropriate to the community at hand. Basically the question is: why did NCAM make this call in this instance. Let me take a guess by example: if I am an elderly person who doesn't see or hear that well any more, I do not want to be called "disabled" (as in: other physical or cognitive disabilities), nor do I want to be called blind or deaf. So, it probably makes sense to name the hard-of-hearing and visually impaired communities explicitly. >From a purely technical standpoint where their needs relate to video I can personally not see a big difference between blind and visually impaired users, nor between deaf and hard-of-hearing users. The only exception that comes to mind would be that visually impaired users that are also deaf or hard-of-hearing will want captions with a user ability to increase the font size. -- 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, 27 September 2011 23:53:15 UTC