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

Hi Catherine,

You have pointed out exactly what we are working through right now. That is, we want to communicate that "disability" is really "the interaction between the physical characteristics of the person and her environment". We're not sure yet if we'll be able to get this across effectively in this page, given that it's so different from most people's perspective of disability. We're still trying, but may decide in the end that it won't work.

(more comments below)

catherine wrote:
> Hi Shawn,
> 
> Although I am not an *EOWG active participant*, I would like to comment 
> on this part :

As I said before, you are welcome to comment. Active participants are expected to comment. We particularly welcome perspectives on this issue, yours and others.

> 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.

The statements above are trying to say that it is the inaccessible website (the environment) that creates "disability". The phrase "inaccessible websites exclude people" doesn't say that. However, we don't want to make statements that some people feel are "painting disability into a negative light" and if these do, then we should avoid them.

Thanks again for your perspective!

Best,
~Shawn


> Best regards,
> 
> 
> Catherine
>

Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 16:22:59 UTC