Re: comments on beta accessibility page (was Re: Phrase with "from using the web" - Re: w3.beta Comments for discussion)

Dear William,

Your tone in inappropriate and not constructive. I'm raising my opinion 
as anyone else. I understand the meaning of consensus.

Enough flaming on this list please.

Cheers,
   Shadi


William Loughborough wrote:
> Interspersed pleas to get on with it. It's not as if this were stone
> tablets: it can all be changed over and over if that's what we want to spend
> our lives doing.
> 
> Love.
> 
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:
> 
>> My comments are on the exchange below and on this version of the page:
>>  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/4betaW3org/accessibility-new-w3c>
> 
> 
> Also I don't think the version you're quibbling over is the one we came up
> with that dealt with much of what you raise.
> 
> 
>> I have several concerns with the following paragraph as it stands now:
> 
> 
> I don't think is any longer "as it stands now"?
> 
> 
>> "The web is a flexible medium that enables most people with impairments to
>> use the web just as well as anyone. Thus, there is inherently no such thing
>> as a disability using the web; the web removes barriers to communication and
>> interaction for most people. However, badly written websites and web tools
>> that are not accessible create barriers that exclude people."
>>
>> #1: "there is inherently no such thing as a disability using the web"
>>  - I'm unsure what is exactly meant but this seems to be a blatant over
>> claim in my opinion. I have a disability every day in using the Web,
>> regardless of how accessible it is. There are limitations to what I can or
>> cannot do but an inaccessible site certainly excludes me from being able to
>> use it (or to use it effectively).
> 
> 
> Of course, in a very real sense we are all unsure of what is exactly meant.
> THIS WILL ALWAYS BE THE CASE. There are indeed limitations to what any of us
> can or cannot do and we all, in the broadest sense, "have a
> disability...using the Web." If we change these things endlessly in the
> attempt to make a perfect document, we risk years of delay in getting a
> useful one. "Consensus" does not mean "Unanimity" and if someone as
> hard-headed as I am can stomach continued labeling, then so should more of
> us. I realize we must miss certain teleconferences and that whatever we do
> will always be subject to further change, particularly from those "higher in
> the food chain", but perhaps we can find a way to just move on.
> 
> #2: "the web removes barriers to communication and interaction for most
>> people"
>>  - Note that the Web may sometimes also introduce barriers, for example for
>> those who may not have access to it (broader aspects of the digital divide).
>> I think Alan had noted some comments in this direction too.
> 
> 
> The telephone and even F2F conversations may also introduce barriers.
> "Doctor DUH!" and "Professor Obvious" should be avoided. Our inboxes are
> full enough already <vbg>.
> 
> #3: "The web is a flexible medium that enables most people with impairments
>> to use the web just as well as anyone"
>>  - Does the word "most" in this sentence contradict the next sentence?
> 
> 
> No, because the next sentence (unless you are insisting on it saying "SOME
> people") merely says badly written Websites exclude people.
> 
> #4: "The web is a flexible medium that enables most people with impairments
>> to use the web just as well as anyone"
>>  - I'm wondering if there are specific reasons for using the term
>> "impairments" rather than the term "disabilities".
>>
>> #5: "However, badly written websites and web tools that are not accessible
>> create barriers that exclude people"
>>  - I prefer this wording over "disable people", I just never felt very
>> comfortable with that word-play.
>>
>> #6: "However, badly written websites and web tools that are not accessible
>> create barriers that exclude people"
>>  - Consider reiterating the point about the potential of the Web for people
>> with disabilities, maybe something like "exclude people with disabilities
>> from taking equal part on the Web".
> 
> 
> If any of the proposed changes were what was in the draft, somebody would
> certainly propose something very like what got replaced and this could be an
> endless loop. No matter what is there, these changes will always be debated
> - sometimes for a decade! We must at some point leave the choice in editors'
> hands.
> 
> 
>> #7: spelling of "web" versus "Web"
>>  - Had we previously agreed that EO resources will capitalize the word
>> "Web" when it is a noun (like "the [Web|web] is a flexible medium")?
>>
> 
> Both this and "impairments" matter have already been addressed, but we were
> dealing with non-wordsmithing items.
> 
> Let's move on - please!
> 
> Love.
> 

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |

Received on Saturday, 29 August 2009 09:56:42 UTC