- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 13:04:15 +0100
- To: Yeliz Yesilada <yyeliz@metu.edu.tr>
- CC: Markel Vigo <markel.vigo@manchester.ac.uk>, RDWG <public-wai-rd@w3.org>
Hi Yeliz, Markel, All, On 9.3.2012 19:44, Yeliz Yesilada wrote: > > On 9 Mar 2012, at 17:16, Markel Vigo wrote: > >> Why not use "end users" instead of "people with disabilities"? If accessibility is a broader concept that also targets situational impairments, I believe that "end users" would be a more encompassing term. I think the term "end users" is a little vague and jargony but may be useful to consider at this stage. > I am not sure about this. If people just start to talk about their experiences, the webinar will have a different focus. I though the overall idea is presenting "research" results. Therefore, there could be papers that talk about user studies where users are disabled web users. However, I do not see how end users or people with disabilities will directly write a short abstract to present their experiences. To me that is something completely different. There can be webinars that end users get together to discuss their experiences but that is not a *research* webinar :-s Why shouldn't we invite the people for whom we are doing research for, to better understand the real challenges? Why can't this be scientific research if we set it up correctly? > I strongly support all Simon's remarks. Especially this one "Adding 'people with disabilities,' is just plain wrong....it suggests we think people with disabilities occur in a set by themselves and not as part of the R&D community - this is wrong and discriminatory!" I think it is more about specifically inviting the end-users that we are talking about. We can debate the wording and approach but claiming that this is "just plain wrong" is quite harsh towards other opinions. Regards, Shadi -- Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG) Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
Received on Sunday, 11 March 2012 12:04:50 UTC