Re: EOWG's goals for the beta accessibility page [was Re: comments on beta accessibility page (was Re: Phrase with "from using the web" - Re: w3.beta Comments for discussion)]

Hi Shawn, Catherine, and all,

Catherine wrote:

>> As to the first claim, I believe that Shawn (correct me if I am wrong)
>> was probably trying to work in the idea that disability is a product of
>> the interaction between the person's "physical" characteristics and her
>> environment (environment, in this type of conceptual model, to be taken
>> in the broadest sense). In that optic, whether we are talking about a
>> Web site or a building, etc., if we ensure accessibility, "most" people
>> with disabilities, while still retaining their "impairment", are not
>> affected by their limitations in that environment because, through
>> various accommodations, it is designed to be inclusive.

Thanks, Catherine for providing a good explanation of that model of
disability. Defining disability in that optic as well as how it fits
with the concept of inclusive design/universality/access for all would
be worthy of a website of its own.  Defining of the terms "disability"
and "universality" would be extremely helpful in the W3C Glossary and
dictionary [1].

>>  And considering that most people are unaware of the
>> aformentionned concept, there is a danger in creating expectations in
>>  that regard.

Agreed.  It is very dangerous. The vast majority of people are unaware
of that concept. It very well could be glossed over, misunderstood, or
worse intentionally convoluted if not clearly explained.  Language in
the August 28a draft [2] such as "most", "there is no such thing as a
disability using the web", and "the web removes barriers" could and
would be used against people with disabilities in favor of the masses.
Some would twist that into meaning: "Because most people with
impairments can use the web just as well as anyone and because it
removes their barriers, we don't have to bother with this
accessibility stuff. Serving *most* people is all that is required."

In fact there has been discussion of the 80/20 rule in the HTML 5 WG.
The 80/20 rule which by it's very nature is discriminatory to the
"edge" 20%, which most often is the constituency that I and a few
others advocate for.  One example of how this worked in the HTML WG…
the editor looked at <table> markup and concluded that scope=""
handled the 80% case fine and thus HTML5 didn't need the headers
attribute. It took a year and a half, over one thousand emails, and
one face-to-face meeting to get the HTML 4 table headers attribute
into HTML 5 and working properly.

Shawn wrote:

> Correct. EOWG has been trying to convey this idea.

Thanks, Shawn for confirming that is in fact the idea.

Inclusive design/access for all/ universality are generic umbrella
terms used to ensure that content is available to everyone, regardless
of the device, platform, network, culture, geographic location, or
physical or mental ability of those using it. Accessibility is an
aspect of universality to ensure that people who cannot readily change
an aspect of themselves are not considered a minority when considering
the "for all" part of universality/access for all. It is about
ensuring that people with disabilities are not discriminated  against.

I completely agree with universality and ensuring that content is
available to everyone, but accessibility is more important, as it's
about people, rather than choices people can make. Accessibility can
offer certain auxiliary benefits, but it most certainly, first and
foremost, aims to accommodate persons with disabilities.

Shawn wrote:

> We have also been trying
> to limit the use of "disability" in the introduction so as not lose those
> people who automatically turn off at that word.

Proponents of removing disability from accessibility seem to want to
remove the association of accessibility being about ensuring that
people are not discriminated against due to their abilities, because
disability doesn't sell. Removing all subsets, and calling anything
access-related accessibility would result in accessibility issues
being weakened and considered with equal weighting to other points
that would usually come under universality. Proponents of removing
disability from accessibility also would need to remove accessibility
as a subset of access for all (as it would have no purpose), and just
rename universality to accessibility, weakening the real goal with
other goals for universality.

A strategy that redefines a discipline to no longer cater for its
intended audience isn't a strategy at all. Weakening accessibility so
that people will accept it is not an option - accessibility is
important in its own right.

As for the idea of negative perceptions of terms, some words do carry
a pejorative meaning and are best avoided for that reason, but
"disability" isn't one of them. I strongly suspect that "handicap" (in
English) does have implications of inferiority and inadequacy built
into it, which is presumably why it isn't much used anymore. There are
of course other words in English which, being pejorative, are highly
discriminatory on the basis of race, gender, cultural/ethnic
background etc., and the better informed among us avoid these too. I
think the better response to negative stereotypes is to challenge and
change them, not to ignore them or attempt to hide from them.

However with that said, one of the ways accessibility can be sold is
by ancillary benefits like pointing out accessible websites generally
result in websites that are usable by everyone. Front-loading
information for people with cognitive/learning difficulties and
ensuring its machine readable and structured correctly for assistive
technologies has obvious SEO benefits. These are great things to use
to sell accessibility that don’t require the definition of
accessibility to be weakened in order avoid talking about what
accessibility really is about.

> Some in EOWG were also taking the approach that the web (at it's best) can
> be used by people with impairments (equally well as people without
> impairments, with some exceptions previously noted). And it's only when
> things are done badly that barriers are introduced.
>
> This is the challenge. Some of the suggested wording doesn't quite attain
> that goal. In the end, we might not be able to pull it off. Let's try a
> little longer...

The August 29 version [3] is an improvement. Thank you for
incorporating the qualifying helping verb "can" as in "can enable" and
"can remove barriers". It helps make the doc more truthful.

Best Regards,
Laura

[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/4betaW3org/accessibility-new-w3c20090828a
[3] http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/4betaW3org/accessibility-new-w3c20090829

-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 16:47:18 UTC