- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 08:14:41 -0800
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
PJ:: (quoting an external definition of "disability")"...within the
range considered normal for a human being..."
WL: considered by whom?, etc. All these definitions are not only sort of
offensive (and not because of Political Incorrectness), but IMHO will
seem ludicrous in the future (if not already). There is something to be
said for not defining this term and letting it mean whatever it means at
the time of reading. I remember the big laughs when a Supreme Court
Justice said he couldn't define pornography but he knew it when he saw
it. Perhaps it should be somehow self-defined. I feel disabled whenever
I try to, e.g. order a new cartridge for my printer because I get put
through so many hoops to get there. Maybe I'm too old to use the Web!
Maybe somebody will come up with a better definition than Alan Cantor's
(sorry I can't point to it, but it struck a chord), but I don't think
the ones currently proposed are usable.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Friday, 17 December 1999 11:15:39 UTC