- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 01:07:01 -0500
- To: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
- Cc: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>, EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>, zara <ecrire@catherine-roy.net>
Hi Shawn, Catherine, and all, Catherine wrote: >> 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. Thanks, Catherine for providing a good explanation of that model of disability. Defining disability in that optic as well as how it fits with the concept of inclusive design/universality/access for all would be worthy of a website of its own. Defining of the terms "disability" and "universality" would be extremely helpful in the W3C Glossary and dictionary [1]. >> And considering that most people are unaware of the >> aformentionned concept, there is a danger in creating expectations in >> that regard. Agreed. It is very dangerous. The vast majority of people are unaware of that concept. It very well could be glossed over, misunderstood, or worse intentionally convoluted if not clearly explained. Language in the August 28a draft [2] such as "most", "there is no such thing as a disability using the web", and "the web removes barriers" could and would be used against people with disabilities in favor of the masses. Some would twist that into meaning: "Because most people with impairments can use the web just as well as anyone and because it removes their barriers, we don't have to bother with this accessibility stuff. Serving *most* people is all that is required." In fact there has been discussion of the 80/20 rule in the HTML 5 WG. The 80/20 rule which by it's very nature is discriminatory to the "edge" 20%, which most often is the constituency that I and a few others advocate for. One example of how this worked in the HTML WG… the editor looked at <table> markup and concluded that scope="" handled the 80% case fine and thus HTML5 didn't need the headers attribute. It took a year and a half, over one thousand emails, and one face-to-face meeting to get the HTML 4 table headers attribute into HTML 5 and working properly. Shawn wrote: > Correct. EOWG has been trying to convey this idea. Thanks, Shawn for confirming that is in fact the idea. Inclusive design/access for all/ universality are generic umbrella terms used to ensure that content is available to everyone, regardless of the device, platform, network, culture, geographic location, or physical or mental ability of those using it. Accessibility is an aspect of universality to ensure that people who cannot readily change an aspect of themselves are not considered a minority when considering the "for all" part of universality/access for all. It is about ensuring that people with disabilities are not discriminated against. I completely agree with universality and ensuring that content is available to everyone, but accessibility is more important, as it's about people, rather than choices people can make. Accessibility can offer certain auxiliary benefits, but it most certainly, first and foremost, aims to accommodate persons with disabilities. Shawn wrote: > We have also been trying > to limit the use of "disability" in the introduction so as not lose those > people who automatically turn off at that word. Proponents of removing disability from accessibility seem to want to remove the association of accessibility being about ensuring that people are not discriminated against due to their abilities, because disability doesn't sell. Removing all subsets, and calling anything access-related accessibility would result in accessibility issues being weakened and considered with equal weighting to other points that would usually come under universality. Proponents of removing disability from accessibility also would need to remove accessibility as a subset of access for all (as it would have no purpose), and just rename universality to accessibility, weakening the real goal with other goals for universality. A strategy that redefines a discipline to no longer cater for its intended audience isn't a strategy at all. Weakening accessibility so that people will accept it is not an option - accessibility is important in its own right. 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. However with that said, one of the ways accessibility can be sold is by ancillary benefits like pointing out accessible websites generally result in websites that are usable by everyone. Front-loading information for people with cognitive/learning difficulties and ensuring its machine readable and structured correctly for assistive technologies has obvious SEO benefits. These are great things to use to sell accessibility that don’t require the definition of accessibility to be weakened in order avoid talking about what accessibility really is about. > Some in EOWG were also taking the approach that the web (at it's best) can > be used by people with impairments (equally well as people without > impairments, with some exceptions previously noted). And it's only when > things are done badly that barriers are introduced. > > This is the challenge. Some of the suggested wording doesn't quite attain > that goal. In the end, we might not be able to pull it off. Let's try a > little longer... The August 29 version [3] is an improvement. Thank you for incorporating the qualifying helping verb "can" as in "can enable" and "can remove barriers". It helps make the doc more truthful. Best Regards, Laura [1] http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/ [2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/4betaW3org/accessibility-new-w3c20090828a [3] http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/4betaW3org/accessibility-new-w3c20090829 -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 16:47:18 UTC