fuller explanation

I think I should write a few words about my postings. They are designed to
provoke just the kinds of responses I've been getting and I want to make
sure that my style/tone doesn't ruffle anyone's feathers. We are all in this
together and I'd hate to sacrifice anyone's "sacred cow".

When I read about "pulling the plug on grandma" or "death panels" or
"medicare is going broke because old peoples' last year uses most of the
funds" I get understandably upset. Although I somehow don't "look disabled",
my CHF (Congestive Heart Failure) is in fact not only the leading cause of
death and has no "cure", but is seldom mentioned in the panoply of
"disabilities" except as it is so closely associated with ageing.

I have been doing this stuff for a very long time (since before most of the
group were born!) and I may have reached some conclusions that run counter
to some people's most closely-held theories, but one thing is clear. As long
as people believe (and most do) "better dead than disabled" we have a lot of
work to do and what we've been trying hasn't worked very well. To continue
to treat "accessibility" as *our* word and "disability" as an acceptable
label, we will not make much inroad into the discrimination that is such a
huge part of our lives.

In particular, the HTML WG, despite its protestations of having our best
interests at heart still treats "accessibility" as something different from
their usual design practice. "Special Needs" is a pretty awful idea to be so
cavalierly accepted by us. Authoring Tools should no more allow @alt to be
subverted than the "src" attribute, which, if misused precludes continuing
with the document. The supposed "burden" on authors is simply not even a
consideration that should be discussed.

Love.

-- 
http://www.boobam.org/webgeezermild.htm