W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 1998

Re: nomenclature

From: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 21:41:53 -0500 (EST)
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
cc: love26@gorge.net, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.9812012141240.18223-100000@shell.clark.net>
hmmm, a post of mine didn't make it to the list but you said it better.
Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

_At 07:41 a.m. 12/01/98 -0800, William Loughborough wrote:
_>Although I'm not much of one for being concerned about Political
_>Correctness or even what things are called it seems to me that we might
_>substitute "Inclusive Design" for the rather vague "universal design"
_>since it says something about what we're really talking about and
_>promotes the central notion of our "aboutness".  Inclusion is furthered
_>by inclusive design, etc.
_At risk of starting a semantics/"politically correct" debate, I
_don't like the idea of "inclusive design" because the connotations
_of "inclusive" seem to imply an active* "outreach" to a group of
_people* who have special needs* in order to be included.
_I marked with a * the items that I think are questionable.  While I
_do believe that inclusive/universal design is important for granting
_access to our friends with various disabilities, I don't feel that
_it's necessary to emphasize these as "extra work you have to do to
_provide for the blind and handicapped", which is how many people
_will interpret what's said above.
_I don't think you need to _actively_ "reach out and include" people
_as part of universal design; the strength of the term universal
_design (or a similar concept) is that the web pages can be used
_by anyone or anything, not just that they're "including" some 
_minority group.  Sad to say, there is a backlash against "inclusion",
_at least in many parts of the US -- witness Mr. Raspberry's 
_mean-spirited little tirade in the Washington Post.  If it smacks
_of "political correctness", many people will have knee-jerk
_reactions against even simple common sense suggestions, let alone
_anything that truly is just.
_For these reasons I feel we get farther by emphasizing that the
_benefits of "universal design" grant "inclusion" to whatever people
_may be lacking it, PLUS it makes it easier for non-standard high-
_tech browsers to use the web, PLUS it makes it easier for search
_engines and other intelligent sifters to parse your site, PLUS
_blah blah blah.  Sell it all as a package, and we're much more
_likely to get at least ONE point that speaks to the listener.
_In short, people suck, and most don't care about being "inclusive",
_so if we put all our eggs in a basket with that label, we'll be
_Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>             http://www.idyllmtn.com/~kynn/
_Chief Technologist & Co-Owner, Idyll Mountain Internet; Fullerton, California
_Enroll now for web accessibility with HTML 4.0!   http://www.hwg.org/classes/
_The voice of the future?   http://www.hwg.org/opcenter/w3c/voicebrowsers.html

touching the internet
voice: 1-(301) 949-7599
Dynamic solutions Inc.
Best of service for your Small Business network Needs
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 1998 21:42:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:02 UTC