Re: comments on beta accessibility page (was Re: Phrase with "from using the web" - Re: w3.beta Comments for discussion)

Hi all,

Laura Carlson wrote:

>> I have several concerns with the following paragraph as it stands now:
>>
>> "The web is a flexible medium that enables most people with impairments to
>> use the web just as well as anyone. Thus, there is inherently no such thing
>> as a disability using the web; the web removes barriers to communication
>> and interaction for most people. However, badly written websites and web
>> tools that are not accessible create barriers that exclude people."
> 
> [snip]
> 
> I share your concerns and agree with your rationale.
> 
> Here is a suggestion to replace that paragraph...
> 
> "The Web is a flexible medium that can enable people with disabilities
> to explore, participate and contribute just as well as anyone. It can
> be phenomenally successful in removing barriers to communication and
> interaction. However, badly written Websites and Web tools that are
> not accessible create barriers that exclude people from taking equal
> part.

Nice proposal :)


> Rationale:
> 
> 1. Removes the two blatant over claims, "no such thing as a disability
> using the web" and "the web removes barriers".

As to the first claim, I believe that Shawn (correct me if I am wrong) 
was probably trying to work in the idea that disability is a product of 
the interaction between the person's "physical" characteristics and her 
environment (environment, in this type of conceptual model, to be taken 
in the broadest sense). In that optic, whether we are talking about a 
Web site or a building, etc., if we ensure accessibility, "most" people 
with disabilities, while still retaining their "impairment", are not 
affected by their limitations in that environment because, through 
various accommodations, it is designed to be inclusive.

Of course, there will be some people, especially those with severe 
impairments or certain cognitive limitations, that will fall outside of 
this general rule. And considering that most people are unaware of the 
aformentionned concept, there is a danger in creating expectations in 
that regard. But personally, while there could probably be a way of 
maybe toning it down a bit, I was not really bothered by this idea. 
Either way, I would be ok with removing it.

As to the second claim, I think that the Web, when accessibility is 
taken into account, certainly can remove certain barriers to 
communication and interaction for a lot of people with disabilities. I 
think that Laura's formulation conveys this perfectly in a positive way.


> 2. Replaces "people with impairments" with "people with disabilities"
> for clarity.
> 2. Removes the word "most" contradiction.
> 3. Reiterates the point about the potential of the Web with "It can be
> phenomenally successful".
> 4. Adds "from taking equal part" phrase to empathize human rights.
> 5. Changes spelling of "web" to "Web" for consistency style consistency.
> 6. Replaces "use the web" with Catherine’s text "explore, participate
> and contribute" to be more illustrative as to how people with
> disabilities might use the web.

Yes to all of the above.

My only hesitation is with the "badly-written" part of the last 
sentence. I wonder if we really need it since we have "that are not 
accessible". Seems a bit redundant. Maybe just say : "However, Web sites 
and Web tools that are not accessible create barriers that exclude 
people from taking equal part." ?

Best regards,


Catherine


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

Received on Saturday, 29 August 2009 15:04:11 UTC