- From: Rachael Bradley Montgomery <rachael@accessiblecommunity.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 12:10:33 -0400
- To: "Niemann, Gundula" <gundula.niemann@sap.com>
- Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com>, Rain Michaels <rainb@google.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAL+jyY+0iduCPxqqXudeV48T2mkpV6ZLfFq0E+YgTZpr-ymL6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Hello, With my chair hat on, I want to point out that W3 guidance encourages us to include gender diversity in our personas and documentation. From that perspective we should work to include Tal as a gender neutral persona. With my chair hat off, I personally will object to publishing if we do not include Tal as a gender neutral persona. Putting my chair hat back on, I would like to find a compromise solution as a way to go forward and we seemed to be close. Assuming we keep the persona, I believe we have 3 options: Option 1) Include the gender statement only in Tal Option 2) Include the gender statement in all personas Option 3) Do not add a pronoun statement to any persona John and Gundala - I believe you object to option 1 and it sounds like that stance is non-negotiable. Lisa has serious concerns about option 2 potentially leading to confusion when a gender specific persona is read without understanding the persona set as a whole. I would like to suggest option 3 (no pronoun statements at all) as a middle ground. John - you had argued for that in an earlier email. Can you live with it now? Other thoughts? I do want to note that both COGA and AG will need to agree so COGA participants weighing in here would be helpful. I appreciate the continued respectful dialogue to work this out. Thank you, Rachael On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 11:38 AM Niemann, Gundula <gundula.niemann@sap.com> wrote: > I fully agree. > > > > *From:* John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> > *Sent:* Montag, 29. März 2021 15:00 > *To:* Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com> > *Cc:* Rain Michaels <rainb@google.com>; Laura Carlson < > laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>; Rachael Bradley Montgomery < > rachael@accessiblecommunity.org>; Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>; WCAG < > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; public-cognitive-a11y-tf < > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org> > *Subject:* Re: Content Usable pronouns and Tal > > > > Hi Lisa, > > > > You have just argued for why this one instance should be removed from the > document. > > > > If, as you say, "...it is not known to many people..." then why are we > adding it? You cannot have both the "we need to support diversity" > argument, and the "not everyone understands this" argument at the same > time. In other words, if stating this for all (or at least more than one) > persona(s) is confusing, then surely adding it to only ONE persona is > equally if not MORE confusing... ("why are they saying this about only this > persona? Is '*gender identity disorder*' a medical condition and part of > their disability?" - see comments about Iran below.) > > > > I've had my reservations about our documents trying to be all things for > all people in the past, and I continue to maintain that this is getting out > of scope for the goal of this document, which is to focus on the needs of *users > with cognitive disabilities*. > > > > If we are insisting on using this as a learning opportunity to address > other social inequalities, fine (and I was prepared to back down slightly), > but do so in a way that does not promote tokenism, which I argue today that > is *EXACTLY* what is happening here. Your latest argument that this can be > confusing for some users (the *impacted audience*) is the final > justification against adding this content. > > To recap, I am opposed to advancing this for the following reasons: > > - *Concerns related to internationalization/translation:* some > languages are gender neutral, and this is going to cause translation > problems (I have previously cited Chinese, and note that this past week W3C > contact Ivan Herman remarked that Hungarian has no gendered pronouns > either: https://www.facebook.com/ivan.herman/posts/10158993478418828 - > apparently this is true for Finnish as well.) > - *Concerns related to cultural norms and laws:* I have previously > cited the 2013 Russian gay propaganda law ("for the Purpose of Protecting > Children from Information Advocating for a Denial of Traditional Family > Values"), and how adding this editorial content MAY run afoul of that > legislation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_gay_propaganda_law). > This legislation "... prohibit(s) the distribution of "*propaganda of > non-traditional sexual relationships*" among minors." > In Iran, the current policy is that Trans persons are not "thought of > as deviants", but as having *a medical illness* (gender identity > disorder) with a cure (sex reassignment surgery). This may be a moot point > however, as in Iran, the government heavily censors material available on > the internet (a 2013 analysis found that nearly half of the 500 most > popular sites on the internet are blacklisted in Iran) and Trans people > cannot research what it means to be transgender or connect with others in > the community. (source: > https://qz.com/889548/everyone-treated-me-like-a-saint-in-iran-theres-only-one-way-to-survive-as-a-transgender-person/) > Q: what will this do to our document for Iran/Iranians? > - *Concerns related to comprehension and purpose:* According to our > own internal COGA Task Force, "... it is not known to many people, and we > want to minimize learning new things..." - that adding this pronoun > information is adding an additional learning burden to the COGA community > (according to the experts) and may detract from the purpose of this > document. > > Given that any one of these could be significant, and that likely adding > all three together even more so, I believe we are over-shooting our mark > here and advocate for the removal of this particular labeling from the Tal > persona. I will now formally oppose the publication of this document AS > IT IS CURRENTLY written for these reasons. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > JF > > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 5:51 AM Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi John, > > Coga thought about this, but did not like adding it to every persona as it > is not known to many people, and we want to minimize learning new things to > understand this content. > > Having a sentence in one persona is compromise that we felt we can do. > people often come sentence a sense that they are not sure what it is about, > but if they understand the rest of it, they are ok. > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 7:23 PM John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote: > > Hi Rain, > > > > Thanks for this research!! It is quite interesting. > > As an additional "option" (consideration?), if we *DO* continue to include > the statement that Tal prefers to be identified as they/them/their, what if > we include this for *all* of the personas: make it a standard bit of > information about all of the personas, not just the one. I think that would > help a little in reducing my impression of 'tokenism' ("Look, we've got one > of those too!" - yes, that comes off as insensitive, and I do not mean it > that way - it's simply an observation that it could be interpreted that > way). > > > > I also continue to be concerned about cultural sensitivity - not every > culture is as accepting of gender diversity as our increasingly secular > Western society, and I believe we need to be mindful of that as well. > > > > Thoughts? > > JF > > > > (Related: editorial note - the text currently reads "Tal like to be > referred to (pronouns) as they/them/theirs" - should it not be "Tal like > *s* to be referred to (pronouns) as Tal/they/them/theirs" - i.e.the > addition of the "s" on "like") > > > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 12:26 PM Rain Michaels <rainb@google.com> wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > I'm hoping that my comments below don't further complicate or confuse this > conversation, but after reading the conversation that followed, I connected > directly with a researcher who has done a lot of work around the > intersection of cognitive and gender diversity in order to better > understand how important it is that we include a non-binary persona. > > > > This researcher confirmed the following: > > · Choosing to use one's name instead of a pronoun (as Rachael > proposed in option 3) is an approach that will be recognized and > appreciated by the community we are trying to include, as it is both a > personal preference, and also a self-protective preference that offers more > subtly. > > · There is a higher than average prevalence of individuals with > cognitive difference also identifying as non-binary; these individuals are > left out in so many ways that it would be a small and positive gesture for > us to include them in the Tal persona. > > · A good resource to help think of the importance of this single > move: Gender Dysphoria and People with Intellectual Disability > <http://www.intellectualdisability.info/mental-health/articles/gender-dysphoria-and-people-with-intellectual-disability> > > > Additionally, given the link to the emerging style recommendation from > EOWG that Laura referenced > <https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Style#Personas_and_use_cases>, and given > that we do have many personas, including Tal as a non-binary individual who > prefers to be referred to by name feels like an important thing for us to > do. > > > > Rain > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 11:24 AM Laura Carlson < > laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Rachael and all, > > I prefer option 1 and 3 combined. > > If specifying pronouns in our personas is going to help to promote > diversity, equality, and inclusiveness, we should be doing it. > > It seems like the Education & Outreach Working Group (EOWG) may be > working on persona pronouns for the WAI Style Guide: > https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Style#Personas_and_use_cases > > Perhaps Shawn may have some guidance for us? > > Thank you, > > Kind Regards, > Laura > > On 3/23/21, Rachael Bradley Montgomery <rachael@accessiblecommunity.org> > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Thank you for the thoughtful discussion at today's meeting about the > plural > > pronoun used in Tal. A resource you can read if this is a new area for > you > > is https://www.mypronouns.org/ > > > > We discussed the following options: > > > > 1. no change > > 2. add it in 1 or 2 places in the main persona > > 3. Tal like to be referred to (pronouns) as Tal/they/them/theirs > > 4. change the persona to remove gender diversity > > 5. use the pronouns as frequently as would be used naturally > > > > COGA had voted against 5 because of readability and translatability > > challenges and compromised with using the minimal pronouns in option 1. > I > > have created a google document with all of the options at > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/18FabK-X1AgOMPqG2YydOrcyl1d89rHxbcfqso2du1vo/edit# > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/18FabK-X1AgOMPqG2YydOrcyl1d89rHxbcfqso2du1vo/edit> > > > > Please take a look and weigh in with your thoughts on how to proceed. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Rachael > > -- > > Rachael Montgomery, PhD > > Director, Accessible Community > > rachael@accessiblecommunity.org > > > > "I will paint this day with laughter; > > I will frame this night in song." > > - Og Mandino > > > > > -- > Laura L. Carlson > > -- Rachael Montgomery, PhD Director, Accessible Community rachael@accessiblecommunity.org "I will paint this day with laughter; I will frame this night in song." - Og Mandino
Received on Monday, 29 March 2021 16:10:56 UTC