Re: For Review: Accessibility page for beta.w3.org

Hi Shawn,

Although I am not an *EOWG active participant*, I would like to comment 
on this part :


Shawn Henry wrote:

>> # Intro Para.2 "When websites and web tools are not accessible, they 
>> disable people." I keep wanting to say "... disable people from x & y" 
> 
> Yup, my previous draft used "not disabling people from using your 
> website or web software."
> 
>> Could we say "When websites and web tools are not accessible, they 
>> cause/create disability for people."?
> 
> This gets into the challenging area we have taken ourselves into.
> 
> I don't think it will work to say "they cause disability" because 
> 'disability' is so strongly thought of as a characteristic of an 
> individual (as opposed to individual-environment). I think people would 
> read that as "an inaccessible website makes a person's vision get 
> worse", which is of course ridiculous, and then we've lost them to the 
> point we're trying to make.

Indeed, while it is true that disability refers to the interaction 
between the physical characteristics of the person and her environment, 
I do not believe that people at large are really aware of this concept 
and it may cause confusion.


> I think the short and blunt wording makes the point stronger: "When 
> websites and web tools are not accessible, they disable people." But 
> would a lot of people still not get it -- because it's so radically 
> different from most people's understanding. Or, given that it's spelled 
> out throughout the paragraph, is it OK?
> 
> Here's the paragraph: "When the web meets its full potential, it is 
> accessible to everyone, including people with a diverse range of 
> hearing, movement, sight, and cognitive ability. The flexibility of the 
> web enables most people with impairments to use the web just as well as 
> anyone. Think about what this means: There is inherently no such thing 
> as a disability using the web. ... However: When websites and web tools 
> are not accessible, they disable people."
> 
> Hum, now that I read it in context, you almost could say they cause 
> disabilities, because of the previous sentence. But I'm still hesitant, 
> partly because if taken out of context, it doesn't work at all.
> 
> *EOWG active participants*, please comment on:
> a. When websites and web tools are not accessible, they disable people.
> b. When websites and web tools are not accessible, they disable people 
> from using them.
> c. When websites and web tools are not accessible, they cause disability.
> d. When websites and web tools are not accessible, they cause disability 
> for people.

I respectfully think neither of these are adequate. As discussions here 
have demonstrated, some people seem to have trouble with this sentence 
or idea and this is from people who are immersed in this area. But I 
also think that this proposal (or variations there of) has the added 
disadvantage of painting disability into a negative light which I do not 
believe is the intent here. I believe it was Shadi who said in a 
previous email that innaccessible web sites exclude people. I feel that 
is the underlying issue here and would much prefer that statement to 
what you are proposing above.

Best regards,


Catherine

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

Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 15:02:38 UTC