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

Hi All,

Shawn wrote:

>> But would a lot of people still not get it -- because it's so radically different from
>> most people's understanding.

Catherine wrote:

> 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 completely agree. People at large would be very confused.

Defining terms is a condition of learning. I think that too often,
those charged with teaching, fail to give students the 'dictionary'.
Jargon and pussy-footing around a subject can be a big obstacle.
Plain, simple, easy to understand definitions are a prerequisite.

One thing that has been a significant aid for accessibility advocates
outside of WAI (be it in the HTML WG or teaching web design and
development at a university) is being able to point to WAI EO's
current definition:

"Web accessibility means that people with disabilities can use the Web."

That is one solid definition that we have relied upon.

The W3C has a Glossary and dictionary [1] and WAI worked on a Glossary
[2] (they seem to be old). Providing current entries for common WAI
terms like "accessibility" [3], would be most beneficial.

As for the idea of negative perceptions of terms, some words do carry
a pejorative meaning and are best avoided for that reason, but
"disability" isn't one of them. I strongly suspect that "handicap" (in
English) does have implications of inferiority and inadequacy built
into it, which is presumably why it isn't much used anymore. There are
of course other words in English which, being pejorative, are highly
discriminatory on the basis of race, gender, cultural/ethnic
background etc., and the better informed among us avoid these too. I
think the better response to negative stereotypes is to challenge and
change them, not to ignore them or attempt to hide from them.

Regarding the draft text:

"The web is fundamentally designed to be available to all people,
whatever their hardware, software, language, culture, location, or
physical or mental ability."

In light of HTML5, it may be more honest to change that to the past
tense: "The web was fundamentally designed..."

Catherine wrote:

> I believe it was
> Shadi who said in a previous email that inaccessible web sites
> exclude people. I feel that is the underlying issue here and would
> much prefer that statement to what you are proposing above.

Also please consider adding the word "specifications" to that sentence to read:

"However: When websites, web tools, and specifications are not accessible...

Some in the HTML5 WG have convoluted the whole idea of universal
design and used it as an excuse not to provide accessibility features.
Some there consider hidden meta data evil/unfair to the sighted...to
the extent of not allowing for explicit associations of related pieces
of content even if this association aids in conveying content and
context relationships to users, when implicit associations do not
provide this functionality. This type of thinking resulted in allowing
text alternatives to be optional on <img>, not just a null alt
attribute for eye candy but no text alternative for content; dropping
@summary, @headers, longdesc, etc.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best Regards,
Laura

[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/Glossary/
[3] http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/keyword/All/?keywords=accessibility

--
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 16:37:16 UTC