W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: Language -- am I being too vigillant?

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 14:40:15 -0500
Message-ID: <006201c16956$5b67fc90$2cf60141@cp286066a>
To: "Jeff Hiles" <jeffrey.hiles@wright.edu>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I believe it was the nfb however that coined "nonvisual" which to me is
quite awkward.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Hiles" <jeffrey.hiles@wright.edu>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: Language -- am I being too vigillant?


Although "people first" language is "the prevailing theory," as David
put
it, there are notable objections.

In addition to the New Zealand advocates Penny mentioned,
representatives of
the National Federation of the Blind in the United States have objected
to
"people first" language for a number of reasons. One is that "it is
awkward,
tiresome, and repetitive, and it makes articles needlessly long." Might
this
have implications for the Web, where you want things short, clear and
natural-sounding?

"People-First Language: An Unholy Crusade "
by C. Edwin Vaughan
http://www.blind.net/bpg00006.htm

"The Pitfalls of Political Correctness: Euphemisms Excoriated"
by Dr. Kenneth Jernigan
http://www.blind.net/bpg00005.htm

--
Jeff Hiles
Instructional Web Designer
Center for Teaching and Learning
Wright State University
Dayton, Ohio 45435
(937) 775-3181
jeffrey.hiles@wright.edu
Received on Friday, 9 November 2001 14:40:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:58 GMT