Re: stab at betaw3

William Loughborough 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. 
> 
> 
> <wl> This is simply not the case. There is frequent disregard for WAI 
> concerns in many of the Working Groups, most visibly the group working 
> on HTML 5. The prevailing view of disability, even among a great many 
> W3C members is the "medical model" which essentially that there's 
> something wrong with us that needs to be cured.

I was of course speaking about the W3C as a general entity and what it 
promotes *globally* (you know, that Web for Everyone, Everywhere, 
Everything thing). I am quite aware that that trickles down unevenly in 
various working groups and the HTML5 working group is an eloquent 
example of what you are saying. HTML5's usual solution to accessibility 
seems to be along the lines of anything that does not have a proven 
obvious benefit to everyone (longdesc, headers, summary, etc.) should be 
done away with without providing alternatives, or at least not now but 
hopefully we might figure it out at some point or someone else will. I 
see this as a problem. I see this as not recognising that some needs 
(for lack of a better word, perhaps realities ?) have to be addressed 
differently and that that is ok.


>     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. 
> 
> 
> <wl> I am hard pressed to see how ANY "accessibility requirements", no 
> matter how few those who might benefit from them, are of little or no 
> use when they are invariably designed to provide for the diversity that 
> enables evolution (social/cultural/genetic) of the species, staving off 
> our extinction because of lack of diversity.

I was speaking on a technical level.


>     But those requirements are still valuable because they enable to
>     accommodate people with disabilities and therefore ensure that the
>     "for all" includes us too.
> 
> 
> <wl> and nothing about the "diversity model" precludes inclusion whereas 
> both medical and social models continue to reinforce our 
> separation/exclusion/persecution - which stigmas are as old as humanity.

I believe this is beyond the scope of this list. But I will be happy to 
discuss it off-list if you wish.


>     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.
> 
> 
> <wl> try telling that to niggers/kikes/retards/broads/frogs/spics etc.
>  
> 
>     Disability, handicap, functional limitations (quite popular here in
>     Québec), functional diversity, etc., it all amounts to the same thing
>     for Joe Lunchbox. 
> 
> 
> <wl> Joe's cousin Steve Sixpack isn't the problem. We are the problem 
> because we accept segregation/exclusion because our diversity is somehow 
> different from those others. "I may be disabled, but at least I'm not 
> queer."

Again, I believe this is out of scope. I do not totally agree but I 
understand what you are saying and will be happy to discuss it off-list.


>     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.
> 
> 
> <wl> but in your experience nothing to date has even scratched the 
> surface of changing the pity model typified by "better dead than 
> disabled", which is based on picking particular diversities for 
> demeanment. When you claim "special needs" you automatically aggravate 
> this association. Our needs are no different in kind from all the 
> classic underclasses, only in tradition - which is enhanced by the 
> labels chosen. When we usurp the idea of "accessibility" to be 
> particular to classicaly accepted notions of "disability" (rather than 
> its literal meaning), we deserve ridicule.

I do not believe that I said "special needs". I did say earlier that 
some needs or interests are specialised. I apologise but I do not know 
how to say it otherwise in English. But as a person with a life-long and 
significant disability, I would be delusional if I did not recognise 
that my physical condition makes me different, sometimes requires 
different accommodations from other 40 year-old women with no 
disability. This has nothing to do with pity, this has to do with 
reality and pragmatism. But anyway, I respect your point of view on this.


>     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.
> 
> 
> <wl> fully agree (at last!). The "primary goal" of accessibility is to 
> make access universal, as in everyone/everything/everywhere.

Hmm, that is not what I said.


>     3. Acting for the benefit of ALL human diversity
> 
>     How does promoting accessibility and disability conflict with that ?
> 
> 
> <wl> promoting accessibility does not conflict with that. Making it 
> peculiar to whatever is considered "disability" does conflict with that 
> because it promotes segragation of "the disabled" from all other 
> diversities, which is why we have this discussion.

I disagree.


>     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.
> 
> 
> <wl> all too true except we are not a "specific group" except by 
> definitions that really don't matter. Remember that although PWD are 
> subject to all these terrors, so are ALL people different from those 
> with the power to lock us up. We aren't just singled out for being blind 
> (or whatever), but for being different. What we are saying is that we 
> must defend/celebrate diversity for its own sake. It's one of the few 
> things we all have in common. We are in some sense the same in that we 
> are all different.

I agree but I do not see how promoting disability (or whatever term one 
chooses to use) is a problem.


>     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 ;)
> 
> 
> <wl> WAI does have a long way to go before we can speak of accessibility 
> for all. We cannot claim special privilege because we are pitied and 
> that's what happens. I'm sure you get the "you're doing such great 
> things for those poor unfortunates" as do I, but we cannot bask in the 
> praise for what should simply be a Human Rights issue. We often speak of 
> the regulations/laws we seek as "civil rights", but they actually 
> transcend those. E.g. Quebecoise insistence on a bi-lingual (or even 
> separate) society seem quaint to outsiders. After all, aren't we just 
> one global society? But the ridicule of having signs in both languages 
> in places where one or the other isn't even spoken must be borne with 
> grace. 

Some of this is out of scope but I will say that we obviously do not 
have the same definition of accessibility and therefore, agreeing will 
be difficult. But that is ok and certainly not necessary for y'all to do 
whatever you decide to do with this issue.


Catherine

PS. When I say "out of scope", I hope you understand that I do not mean 
that it is not important or relevant. I just mean that some of it goes 
beyond the issues I was trying to address on a specific matter. I may be 
wrong of course but I feel that it would probably be best to discuss 
some of this in another forum.

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

Received on Sunday, 16 August 2009 18:39:35 UTC