- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 12:26:29 -0800
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "Marti" <marti@agassa.com>
At 11:51 AM 12/24/00 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>....if I claimed I was "disabled" because I am about 30 lbs overweight, or
>because I need glasses to see, or because I never learned how to play the
>piano, then the definition of disability loses its meaning and power."
Only if by so claiming you are creating that "definition". The things you
cite don't qualify either with a formal definition or a common-sense one.
OTOH aging is so closely associated with almost inevitable "ability
decrements" that it really does qualify. E.g. my urologist says "if you get
to be 90, you WILL have prostate cancer" although there may be some
nonagenarian out there who didn't. I still read perfectly well without
glasses but I need more light on the page. That latter is analogous to
accessing via indices, etc. I "used to could" find items with word
searches, now I can't. I didn't get lazy (in fact I'm working longer/harder
than at almost any time in my life), I lost a certain ability - hence the
term "disability".
There is a detailed version of this inevitability fairly deep into
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/Overview.html which says
"Changes in people's functional ability due to aging can
include subtle and/or gradual changes in abilities or a combination of
abilities including vision, hearing, dexterity and memory. Barriers can
include any of the issues already mentioned above. Any one of these
limitations can affect an individual's ability to access Web content.
Together, these changes can become more complex to accommodate."
So if I claim I'm "disabled" because I'm quite senior, take it as a
non-frivolous item. Not just because of the 3/4 century but the inevitable
accompaniment.
You'll see!
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Sunday, 24 December 2000 15:26:14 UTC