- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 17:07:43 -0800
- To: "Charles F. Munat" <coder@acnet.net>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
At 06:46 p.m. 01/02/99 -0600, Charles F. Munat wrote: >So do not underestimate the power of ethical or moral >arguments. Nations have toppled over them. I disagree. Nobody cares about the disabled except perhaps as objects of pity. This is why we have laws requiring access to public buildings, for example -- because nobody, out of the goodness of their hearts, will just do it because it's "right". People only care when they're forced to care. [Insert analogy here regarding forced integration in the South, BTW -- except that I don't really want to go down that tangent, since I think it's a poor chosen analogy.] (Of course the above is over-stated; however, as a generalization it's true for the majority of society. If your view on ethics and morality were right, then there would be _no_ barriers left for the disabled to overcome, because the able-bodied would be eagerly going out of their way to eliminate all obstacles. This isn't the case, because people aren't "ethical" and "moral.") >Overall your argument seems cynical to me. Worse, you make >"idealist" sound like a four-letter word. Idealism is what >makes us most human. It is our greatest gift, that we can >see beyond our immediate needs. To dismiss this as naive and >to play--quite consciously--to selfishness seems to me to >perhaps win the battle but lose the war. It is a price I, >for one, am not willing to pay. I think you misinterpreted what I said. (Plus, in your third on what you don't like, you referred to "human nature" anyway.) >Sure, let's sing the praises of accessibility for all, >disabled or not, but let us not forsake the high moral >ground. Why is accessibility for the blind on "higher moral ground" than accessibility for the poor, accessibility for the users of non- standard web browsers, or accessibility for international users? I think you need to very carefully back up and reconsider why you hold disabled users up on a pedestal they haven't necessarily asked to be placed on, and are promoting their concerns as the only "moral" ones we face. _My_ moral high ground is "accessibility for everyone" not "accessibility for anyone who isn't as physically functional as the typical person." The latter high ground sounds awful condescending -- but then, it should be noted that I'm not a disabled person. -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://www.kynn.com/ Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet http://www.idyllmtn.com/ Design an accessible web site: http://www.kynn.com/+fedweb Tell your friend a celebrity wrote to you: http://www.kynn.com/+imdb Enroll now for my online CSS course! http://www.kynn.com/+css
Received on Saturday, 2 January 1999 20:11:43 UTC