- From: Charles F. Munat <coder@acnet.net>
- Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 01:18:14 -0600
- To: +ADw-w3c-wai-ig+AEA-w3.org+AD4
-----Original Message----- From: Charles F. Munat +ADw-coder+AEA-acnet.net+AD4- To: Kynn Bartlett +ADw-kynn-hwg+AEA-idyllmtn.com+AD4- Date: Saturday, January 02, 1999 8:06 PM Subject: Re: The second thing I don't like about the WAI-IG list At 06:46 p.m. 01/02/99 -0600, Charles F. Munat wrote: +AD4APg-So do not underestimate the power of ethical or moral +AD4APg-arguments. Nations have toppled over them. At 07:11 p.m. 01/02/99 -0600, Kynn Bartlett wrote: +AD4-I disagree. Nobody cares about the disabled except perhaps as +AD4-objects of pity. This is why we have laws requiring access to +AD4-public buildings, for example -- because nobody, out of the +AD4-goodness of their hearts, will just do it because it's +ACI-right+ACI-. +AD4-People only care when they're forced to care. Ouch+ACE- This is really cynical. Again, I disagree. Corporations have to be forced (not always, but often), whether by law or by public opinion, because corporations are inhuman. And the people who work in them are conditioned to think bottom line, not ethics. They often feel powerless against the might of the company. But people are not corporations, and even the CEO who just created a new toxic waste dump may go out of his or her way to do a kind thing for a stranger. Most, if not all, people want to feel good about themselves. It's hard to feel good about yourself when you are hurting other people. So, the best way to stop people from hurting others is to make them aware of that harm, and to make them aware that others are also aware. The law should always be a last resort, not the first resort. And as for caring, you can force people to act, but you cannot force them to care. They either do or they don't. And my experience is that people usually do. People are a lot more complex than is implied by the argument above. +AD4-(Of course the above is over-stated+ADs- however, as a generalization +AD4-it's true for the majority of society. If your view on ethics +AD4-and morality were right, then there would be +AF8-no+AF8- barriers left +AD4-for the disabled to overcome, because the able-bodied would be +AD4-eagerly going out of their way to eliminate all obstacles. This +AD4-isn't the case, because people aren't +ACI-ethical+ACI- and +ACI-moral.+ACI-) This is simply untrue. First, if you look at the polls you'll see that the majority of people, at least in the U.S., want to see greater accessibility for people with disabilities. I suspect the numbers may be even greater in other countries. Do not confuse corporate and government policy with the desires of the people. In the U.S., as in most countries, the government and big business serve the interests of the elite, and they will only bend when those interests are threatened. The ADA passed, not because we have enlightened leaders in Congress, but becuase a lot of ordinary Americans, many of them not considering themselves disabled, made it too costly for the powers-that-be to avoid. And those same people continue to pressure the goverment to enforce it. Where do they fit into the above equation? The fallacy of your argument, Kynn, is obvious. You have stated that you are not disabled. Yet you obviously are a passionate advocate for accessibility. Is this really only a selfish pursuit for business gain, or are you in fact an ethical, moral person? My guess is the later. Is it not also possible that I, too, am an ethical person? And if so, what about the others on this list, or were you making exceptions for them, too? And do you really believe that of all the people all over the world devoting time to volunteer work, giving money to charities, etc., only we care about the rights of people with disabilities? I hope not. +AD4APg-Overall your argument seems cynical to me. Worse, you make +AD4APgAi-idealist+ACI- sound like a four-letter word. Idealism is what +AD4APg-makes us most human. It is our greatest gift, that we can +AD4APg-see beyond our immediate needs. To dismiss this as naive and +AD4APg-to play--quite consciously--to selfishness seems to me to +AD4APg-perhaps win the battle but lose the war. It is a price I, +AD4APg-for one, am not willing to pay. +AD4-I think you misinterpreted what I said. (Plus, in your third on +AD4-what you don't like, you referred to +ACI-human nature+ACI- anyway.) Perhaps I did misinterpret you. I hope so. But I think that you may not have pursued your line of reasoning to its obvious conclusion. See the discussion above about who is ethical and who isn't. +AD4-Why is accessibility for the blind on +ACI-higher moral ground+ACI- than +AD4-accessibility for the poor, accessibility for the users of non- +AD4-standard web browsers, or accessibility for international users? +AD4-I think you need to very carefully back up and reconsider why +AD4-you hold disabled users up on a pedestal they haven't necessarily +AD4-asked to be placed on, and are promoting their concerns as the +AD4-only +ACI-moral+ACI- ones we face. +AF8-My+AF8- moral high ground is +ACI-accessibility +AD4-for everyone+ACI- not +ACI-accessibility for anyone who isn't as physically +AD4-functional as the typical person.+ACI- +AD4-The latter high ground sounds awful condescending -- but then, it +AD4-should be noted that I'm not a disabled person. First, I do not consider accessibility for people with disabilities to be higher moral ground than accessibility for the poor, and I did not say so. The issue centers around the idea of choice. The person with a disability has no choice but to live with that disability. The person who is poor probably doesn't have much choice either. I consider access for the poor to be equally important with access for people with disabilites. But let's talk about users of non-standard browsers. Let's say that you like to use, oh, say, Opera, with image loading and frames turned off. Well, that's your choice. Certainly makes things faster. Actually, you had to pay for that browser and had to go out of your way to turn images and frames off. Now, to make my site accessible to you, given your choice, might be a good business decision for me. Depends. Are you the only one? Well, then turn the damn images and frames back on. Are there a lot of you. Hmm, better reconsider. But is your refusal to turn the images and frames on a moral one, or one of choice and convenience? You can just as easily turn them on as off. How does this compare to the person who MUST use a screen reader to access that information. Should we really consider both of these to be moral issues? Do these warrant equal consideration? Perhaps you think so. I think not. And making them equal is the truly condescending choice. I am putting no-one on a pedestal. I do not speak for people with disabilities. I only ask, What do I need to do to permit you to access my site? Tell me, and I will do it if at all possible. And if I can contribute to a fund to distribute computers to those who can't afford them (or at least get access for them in some way), I will do so (proportionately with other issues that I must confront... can't do everything). Describing this as +ACIAWw-putting them+AF0- up on a pedestal+ACI- smacks to me of the +ACI-No Special Rights+ACI- argument used against the gay community. Does the ADA put people with disabilities on a pedestal? Certainly it's about +ACI-rights+ACI- and rights are always moral and ethical issues. I don't see that wanting people who did not choose their condition to be able to overcome its limitations is putting them on a pedestal. I think it's simply being just. And as for international users, well that depends on the intended audience. If your information is pertinent to only people in your region, I don't see that you need to make it accessible to the curious from other regions. Should every site be translated into every language just in case? Again, not a moral issue but one of business sense and logistics. It makes sense to translate your site or insure international access only when your clientele is international (I should know... I live and work in Mexico and build sites in English for an American and Canadian audience, sometimes with translation into Spanish and other languages). I'm ready to hear from some others on this issue. Anyone else? Charles Munat Puerto Vallarta
Received on Sunday, 3 January 1999 02:26:36 UTC