- From: Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 10:43:36 +0300
- To: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
- Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, 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>
- Message-ID: <CAKExBMKHpLvCjGrE=gtGO0MnNJWquy87d6vb4yBgCGF7wEcmtA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Wilco Yes I think you understood The task force felt that the way it is written was a good compromise between comprehension and inclusion. Personally (facilitator hat off) I think if we feel as a group that we have the right balance, and are doing the right thing, we should not worry too much about an objection. lisa On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 2:23 PM Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com> wrote: > Hey John, > > If we're going to decide against inclusion (which is in the mission > statement of the W3C), it seems like we're going to need to have good > arguments for that. I'm not too sure we have those. Can you expand on your > reasoning a little further? > > *1. Concerns related to internationalization/translation*: The internet's > full of articles about gender neutral pronouns in various languages. Not > all languages have gendered pronouns, in which case there's nothing to > translate. Just omit and move on. But for all of the examples I've heard so > far, I found articles explaining gender neutral pronouns, including > Chinese, Japanese, Hungarian, Finish, French and German. It strikes me that > if you can translate something as complex as a poem how could something as > straight-forward as a pronoun not be translatable? Even if for some reason > it isn't possible to translate, the "use their name" option is still > available to the translator, is it not? > > *2. Concerns related to cultural norms and laws*: Obviously, we'll want > to avoid breaking laws. But the only example of it that was shared was the > Russian law about distributing materials on sexuality (not gender) to > children. This document isn't written with minors as its target audience. > Can you explain why you think this law might apply here? Are there any laws > that specifically prohibit the use of gender neutral language that we'd > need to take into consideration? > > Then culture; Shouldn't the mission of the W3C; a mission to building an > open web for everyone take presidence over culture? It seems to me like > what we're doing at WAI is to try to change cultures to be more inclusive, > more considerate of the needs of different people. One of the things this > document is trying to promote is not just to use "middle of the road" > personas, but to look from broad and diverse perspectives. That's the whole > point of personas. It feels like a serious omission to include diversity on > abilities, diversity on ethnicity, but to leave out or hide away diversity > of gender. At this point, this argument has been completely hypothetical. > John is arguing on behalf of "other cultures", but do we actually know > anyone, any organization, any government, whatever, who would not to use > this document because it has a gender neutral persona in it? > > *3. Concerns related to comprehension and purpose*: As Lisa says "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." If I understand that right, > even if someone doesn't know about gender neutral pronouns, using them once > or twice isn't a problem for comprehension of the persona. Am I > misunderstanding the argument here? > > > I don't think we should have this be decided based on "some languages" and > "some cultures and laws". If we have actual examples of a language, or an > organization or a region that wouldn't adopt this document because of this > persona, fair enough. That's an argument. But so far nobody's produced any > that I couldn't contradict with 5 minutes of research. > > Kind regards, > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 3:01 PM John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote: > >> 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# >>>>>> > >>>>>> > 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> > > -- > *Wilco Fiers* > Axe-core product owner - Facilitator ACT Task Force - Co-chair ACT-Rules > > >
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2021 07:44:34 UTC