- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:36:07 -0700
- To: jbrewer@w3.org, public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
------- Original Message ------- >From : Judy Brewer[mailto:jbrewer@w3.org] If you feel that there are improvements, let us know; likely to be usable by the working group in completing their work on WCAG 2.0. I have wrestled long/hard with what to say about how to make the Web more accessible for what we persist in calling people with learning/cognitive disabilities. In the sense that we use the label, I don't seem to be a part of any l/c-d "community" and with very few exceptions am in communication with almost none, whereas in the case of blindness and mobility-impairment I know hundreds of people in those "communities". What this means is that in order to get anywhere whatsoever in the effort at inclusion for this rather large group we have chosen to more or less arbitrarily label, it is imperative that we subscribe to the old picket-line-mantra "nothing about us without us". It is singularly clear that in general sighted people can't accurately/effectively "represent" blind folks. I feel quite certain that the same is true for the folks we want to include in our overall accessibility-enhancing efforts FOR (rather than BY) persons with "cognitive disabilities." If it is considered important to get WCAG 2 "out there" then the inclusion of the language that sort of excuses the paucity of current efforts while noting that a lot of "research" must be done is likely about as good as we can get, but unless we can, among other things, eat our own dog food by assuring that all W3C efforts attend to accessibility as an integral part of our proceedings, the hypocrisy will abnegate much of our endeavour. Love.
Received on Saturday, 16 June 2007 18:36:14 UTC