W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-eo-editors@w3.org > April 2011

Re: [wbs] response to 'EOWG Review: How People with Disabilities Use the Web - March 2011 Draft'

From: Denis Boudreau <dboudreau@webconforme.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 00:03:39 +0200
Message-id: <69F0B453-0C2A-4BD1-AB47-AFCCEBD48C73@webconforme.com>
To: wai-eo-editors@w3.org
Hi Shadi,


On 2011-04-06, at 1:44 PM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:

>> Mr Yunus: There is nothing related to his mild short-term memory loss disability. Should we add on related-browsing problems for him, or just drop the mild short-term memory loss problem altogether?
> 
> I agree that the short-term memory loss (or actually limitations) can be better illustrated in the story. I'd like to bring this to EOWG for further exploration of the idea.

I agree.


>> Ms. Kaseem: Most people don't know what being legally blind means. Therefore, it might be confusing for people to read that she can see small portions of the screen as a blind person. I would suggest changing "she is deaf and recently became legally blind too" by "she is deaf and recently lost most of her sight" (or something like that) instead.
> 
> The term "legally blind" is further qualified with "but she can see small portions of a screen". This was intended to help people learn this new term, rather than to avoid it altogether. I'd like to bring this to EOWG for further discussion too.

Perfect. I must, however, remind you that I will not be on the call this friday, as I am in Paris teaching all week. 

I don't need to be a part of the discussion, all I care about is that a discussion actually takes place on this and we agree whether this is acceptable or not.


>> It also seems unlikely yto me that she would be using a braille display if she only recently became legally blind, as braille is not something one learns overnight. I have yet to see someone who uses screen magnification software also use a braille keyboard. In order to m take this scenario more plausible, I'd suggest turning this around by saying she has had really poor sight from birth and has recently become deaf.
> 
> I actually know the real Ms. Kaseem but that's another story... ;)
> 
> Again, the use of Braille is qualified with "which she reads slowly" but I agree that it could be further elaborated. Also your suggestion may be worth considering as an alternative.
> 
> Let's discuss in EOWG...

Please do. 

Again, I don't mean to force a decision or anything, all I really care about is that the issue gets discussed, in case it actually helps improve the document.


> This is a more sensitive issue that we had quite a bit of discussion on. The problem is that saying "most people with auditory disabilities do not know sign language" reinforces the unfortunate myth that sign language is quantitatively less used and therefore less important. We specifically wanted to stay neutral with respect to quantities but to still convey the fundamental message.
> 
> Let me know if you are not convinced and want further discussion.

I see your point and i can agree with it.


>> Question: "Quadriplegia (sometimes called "tetraplegia")". Isn't quadraplegia having both arms and legs paralyzed, while tetraplegia is paralyzation form arms, legs and head?
> 
> My dictionaries say that "Tetraplegia" is Latin-English (more used in Europe) while "Quadraplegia" is Roman-English. Please let me know if you have other references on this but I'm pretty sure.

You know what? I just realized after reading this that tetra is actually greek for 4, so no, I don't have any reference. Must have been a mistake from my part all along. It appears teraplegic and quadraplegic are synonymous: <http://www.spinal-injury.net/quadriplegia.htm>.

So let's pretend I never said anything shall we? ;p


>> Change: "Not all people who have auditory disabilities or who are deaf know sign language." to "Most people who have auditory disabilities do not know sign language. People who are deaf are more likely to know sign language."
> 
> Same as above.

OK. I can live with that as well.

/Denis
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 22:04:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 6 April 2011 22:04:10 GMT