Re: stab at betaw3

Interspersed responses start with <wl>

2009/8/16 catherine <ecrire@catherine-roy.net>

>
> Javier Romañach Cabrero wrote:
>
>> The key issue here is a three step path:
>> 1. Saying or stating that web should be for all diversity in humanity
>>
>
> I believe that W3C promotes this ideal in general.


<wl> This is simply not the case. There is frequent disregard for WAI
concerns in many of the Working Groups, most visibly the group working on
HTML 5. The prevailing view of disability, even among a great many W3C
members is the "medical model" which essentially that there's something
wrong with us that needs to be cured.

However, as in other domains of human endeavour, specific initiatives are
> put forth to achieve this notion of universality because some interests or
> needs are specialised and therefore may necessitate accommodations that are
> only of use to one or a few minority groups or communities. For example, WAI
> was set up to ensure that the "for all" aspect of the *Web for All* took
> into account the needs of people with disabilities. And while it is true
> that accessibility can represent certain secondary or additional benefits
> that everyone can take advantage of, other accessibility requirements are of
> little or no use to persons without disabilities.


<wl> I am hard pressed to see how ANY "accessibility requirements", no
matter how few those who might benefit from them, are of little or no use
when they are invariably designed to provide for the diversity that enables
evolution (social/cultural/genetic) of the species, staving off our
extinction because of lack of diversity.


> But those requirements are still valuable because they enable to
> accommodate people with disabilities and therefore ensure that the "for all"
> includes us too.


<wl> and nothing about the "diversity model" precludes inclusion whereas
both medical and social models continue to reinforce our
separation/exclusion/persecution - which stigmas are as old as humanity.


> 2. Believing that functional diversity (disability) is just a part of human
> diversity.
>

You know, it does not really matter what label you choose to use.


<wl> try telling that to niggers/kikes/retards/broads/frogs/spics etc.


> Disability, handicap, functional limitations (quite popular here in
> Québec), functional diversity, etc., it all amounts to the same thing
> for Joe Lunchbox.


<wl> Joe's cousin Steve Sixpack isn't the problem. We are the problem
because we accept segregation/exclusion because our diversity is somehow
different from those others. "I may be disabled, but at least I'm not
queer."


> And yes, it is part of human diversity but in my
> experience, using new politically correct buzz words or designations to
> promote one conceptual model or another may be useful to policy makers,
> program coordinators, researchers, intellectuals, etc., but will have very
> little effect on people's (as in the general population's) perceptions of
> disability.


<wl> but in your experience nothing to date has even scratched the surface
of changing the pity model typified by "better dead than disabled", which is
based on picking particular diversities for demeanment. When you claim
"special needs" you automatically aggravate this association. Our needs are
no different in kind from all the classic underclasses, only in tradition -
which is enhanced by the labels chosen. When we usurp the idea of
"accessibility" to be particular to classicaly accepted notions of
"disability" (rather than its literal meaning), we deserve ridicule.


> I think that what engenders that belief for most people is being
> "confronted" directly with disability, being in direct relation with
> people with disabilities, whether in the work place, schools,
> restaurants, on the street, etc., etc. And that can not happen without
> accessibility. And accessibility can not happen, or happen properly, by
> denying or downplaying its primary goal.


<wl> fully agree (at last!). The "primary goal" of accessibility is to make
access universal, as in everyone/everything/everywhere.


> 3. Acting for the benefit of ALL human diversity
>
> How does promoting accessibility and disability conflict with that ?


<wl> promoting accessibility does not conflict with that. Making it peculiar
to whatever is considered "disability" does conflict with that because it
promotes segragation of "the disabled" from all other diversities, which is
why we have this discussion.

I must say that I am quite tired of this idea that it is somehow wrong
> to act in the interest of a specific group. Maybe someday, probably when I
> am long dead, "special interests groups" will be unnecessary. But with
> regards to people with disabilities, we are certainly not there yet.


<wl> all too true except we are not a "specific group" except by definitions
that really don't matter. Remember that although PWD are subject to all
these terrors, so are ALL people different from those with the power to lock
us up. We aren't just singled out for being blind (or whatever), but for
being different. What we are saying is that we must defend/celebrate
diversity for its own sake. It's one of the few things we all have in
common. We are in some sense the same in that we are all different.


 I'm no quite sure where Tim is on step 1 or 2, but, in my view, WAI has
> long way been before step 1 ;-).
>
 Obviously, I disagree ;)


<wl> WAI does have a long way to go before we can speak of accessibility for
all. We cannot claim special privilege because we are pitied and that's what
happens. I'm sure you get the "you're doing such great things for those poor
unfortunates" as do I, but we cannot bask in the praise for what should
simply be a Human Rights issue. We often speak of the regulations/laws we
seek as "civil rights", but they actually transcend those. E.g. Quebecoise
insistence on a bi-lingual (or even separate) society seem quaint to
outsiders. After all, aren't we just one global society? But the ridicule of
having signs in both languages in places where one or the other isn't even
spoken must be borne with grace.

Love.

-- 
http://www.boobam.org/webgeezermild.htm