W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2005

RE: Accessibility for Deaf

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpatrick@macromedia.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 07:04:50 -0700
Message-ID: <DC9D05204B1E16419D62C12561C9322105A128B6@p01exm01.macromedia.com>
To: "Randal Rust" <randalrust@gmail.com>, "WAI-IG" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Randal,
The issue is with the etymology of the word.  The meaning is clear to
you, but the term originated because of people's assumptions.  We may be
smart enough to know what this term means in this context, but the risk
is that someone who doesn't may make incorrect assumptions that are
avoidable.

I doubt you'd find too many people who can't speak who refer to
themselves as dumb, and that should be the test. To suggest that a word
should never be removed from use because it is clear, even if offensive,
is just incorrect in my opinion.

AWK 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Randal Rust
> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 9:31 AM
> To: WAI-IG
> Subject: Re: Accessibility for Deaf
> 
> 
> On 10/7/05, Stuart.M.Smith@manchester.ac.uk 
> <Stuart.M.Smith@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> > You miss my point about cultural weighting.
> 
> No, I understand what you are saying.
> 
> > I would suggest that "dumb" has such a strong sense of 
> "stupidity" that whatever other context it is used in it 
> still carries that meaning as well.
> 
> And I completely disagree. When I hear or see /deaf and dumb/ 
> used or written together, I completely understand what it 
> means within the context. People are smart enough to know 
> what you mean.
> 
> > It is not an exact science, hence the need for sensitivity.
> 
> I'm not saying that people shouldn't be sensitive. But, of 
> all places in the world where people should certainly 
> understand the use of the word within the proper context, 
> this would be the place.
> 
> Of course, the term should be used responsibly, but to 
> suggest that it can be removed from context is just plain 
> ridiculous, especially when the context is so clear.
> 
> By no means am I condoning or criticizing the word. My issue 
> lies completely with saying that the word always means a 
> particular thing, regardless of context.
> 
> --
> Randal Rust
> www.r2communications.com
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 7 October 2005 14:05:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:23 GMT