Re: Phrase with "from using the web" - Re: w3.beta Comments for discussion

Hi again Shawn,

Shawn Henry wrote:
> catherine wrote:
>> Finally, I reiterate that, for the content at the aforementionned URL, 
>> second paragraph, last sentence, it is preferable to convey that 
>> innaccessible ressources exclude people (and not "disable people"). I 
>> really do feel that it puts a negative spin on the state of disability 
>> that is unnecessary in this context.
> 
> Hi Catherine,
> 
> Several EOWG participants like the phrase as it is at the end of this 
> paragraph:
> "The web is a flexible medium that 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 from using the web."
> 
> With the addition of "from using the web" does this still bother you? 
> Can you say more about it to help us understand your perspective?
> 
> (Note that that paragraph is likely to be rewritten -- but it still 
> helps us to know your perspective so the rewrite can take it into account.)

You know, this could have been a really, really long email but it is 
late so y'all count your lucky stars I am tired :)

Anyway, I could go on and on about this but basically, I would say that, 
if recent discussions on this list and during telecons are any 
indication, I understand that some of you have been trying to reimagine 
disabilty. And to be honest, I think that is perfect, I have been doing 
that all my life. The thing is however that while we are here debating 
what labels to use, the fact remains that to most people, we are people 
with disabilities or disabled people (that is when they bother to put 
the word or the idea of "people" into the equation or are not using some 
really archaic term). I hope I do not have to tell anyone here that, 
whatever appellation you favour, generally, a lot of people have a 
negative impression about what disabilty is (and most of the time, they 
have no clue).

So is it really necessary to underscore that negative perception ? To 
me, a person with a disability (several, actually), reading a statement 
like "innaccessible web sites disable people" or variations there of, 
sounds very negative, like "oh my gawd, being disabled sucks, do not 
make it worse, please", etc., etc.

I have proposed that we go with "innaccessible web sites exclude people" 
and that has not garnered much enthusiasm. C'est juste, I do not expect 
everyone to agree with me or to understand my particular point of view 
but I hope we can agree on how cool it would be instead to convey a 
positive message.

So how about instead of saying :

"The web is a flexible medium that 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."

We say :

"The web is a flexible medium; most people with disabilities can 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. An accessible 
Web enables everyone, regardless of disabilities, to explore, 
participate and contribute."

As with all my proposals, the above can surely be improved and I could 
not work in "web tools" but I trust someone, even me given time, would 
have an epiphany. But the point is to give it a postive spin, to say 
hey, the Web is cool and every one can take part if you think about it 
instead of saying boo hoo, innaccessible web sites disable people, and 
that sucks. Because, the fact is, being a person with a disabilty does 
not always suck. And sometimes, being us is a lot of fun, on or off the 
Web. You know ?

Best regards,


Catherine

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

Received on Friday, 28 August 2009 06:29:17 UTC