Re: stab at betaw3

Hi,

Javier Romañach Cabrero wrote:
> The key issue here is a three step path:
> 1. Saying or stating that web should be for all diversity in humanity

I believe that W3C promotes this ideal in general. However, as in other
domains of human endeavour, specific initiatives are put forth to 
achieve this notion of universality because some interests or needs are 
specialised and therefore may necessitate accommodations that are only 
of use to one or a few minority groups or communities. For example, WAI 
was set up to ensure that the "for all" aspect of the *Web for All* took 
into account the needs of people with disabilities. And while it is true 
that accessibility can represent certain secondary or additional 
benefits that everyone can take advantage of, other accessibility 
requirements are of little or no use to persons without disabilities. 
But those requirements are still valuable because they enable to 
accommodate people with disabilities and therefore ensure that the "for 
all" includes us too.


> 2. Believing that functional diversity (disability) is just a part of 
> human diversity.

You know, it does not really matter what label you choose to use.
Disability, handicap, functional limitations (quite popular here in
Québec), functional diversity, etc., it all amounts to the same thing
for Joe Lunchbox. And yes, it is part of human diversity but in my
experience, using new politically correct buzz words or designations to 
promote one conceptual model or another may be useful to policy makers, 
program coordinators, researchers, intellectuals, etc., but will have 
very little effect on people's (as in the general population's) 
perceptions of disability.

I think that what engenders that belief for most people is being
"confronted" directly with disability, being in direct relation with
people with disabilities, whether in the work place, schools,
restaurants, on the street, etc., etc. And that can not happen without
accessibility. And accessibility can not happen, or happen properly, by 
denying or downplaying its primary goal.


> 3. Acting for the benefit of ALL human diversity

How does promoting accessibility and disability conflict with that ?

I must say that I am quite tired of this idea that it is somehow wrong
to act in the interest of a specific group. Maybe someday, probably when 
I am long dead, "special interests groups" will be unnecessary. But with 
regards to people with disabilities, we are certainly not there yet.


> I'm no quite sure where Tim is on step 1 or 2, but, in my view, WAI has 
> long way been before step 1 ;-).

Obviously, I disagree ;)

Best regards,


Catherine


-- 
Catherine Roy
http://www.catherine-roy.net

Received on Sunday, 16 August 2009 16:26:39 UTC