- From: Charles F. Munat <coder@acnet.net>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:00:40 -0600
- To: <po@trace.wisc.edu>, <uaccess-l@trace.wisc.edu>, "'IG - WAI Interest Group List'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "Mike Paciello" <paciello@ma.ultranet.com>
On Sunday, January 03, 1999 10:58 PM Mike wrote: "technology created or enhanced to benefit people with disabilities has often led to emerging and/or advanced technology that then goes on to benefit mankind in general. I am convinced that pushing technology to new heights hinges on this development cycle." ----------------------- This is a very good point. But I wonder what is meant by "benefit mankind in general." Access to information that has a direct bearing on one's life is clearly a benefit to mankind. This is what access to the web by people with disabilities is all about, IMO. But it is also a benefit to those without disabilities, even if they do not use that technology directly, because when some of us suffer, we are all impoverished, whether we realize it or not. This is an argument I have yet to see made on behalf of ensuring accessibility to people with disabilities. Let me make this point again: Although I am not disabled, when another citizen who *does* have a disability is provided with the means to access otherwise inaccessible data, *I*, too, am benefited. This is because a society in which a portion of the population is oppressed is a broken society, and no matter how much the rich, free members of that society think they are "winning", all are in fact losing, because a broken society benefits no-one. But getting back to the benefiting of "mankind in general," what exactly does this mean? Is television a benefit to mankind? Is the latest, greatest techno toy a benefit to mankind? So, again, do we really want to start justifying accessibility to people with disabilities (a right) with arguments about greater benefits (conveniences) to others? It seems to me that it pollutes the debate. Everyone, regardless of disability (including those impoverished), has a right to access to information that affects his or her life. The simplest term for this right is justice. That argument is enough. Period. And when we start making other justifications, we imply that we don't really believe that equal access is a right. I, for one, am not even happy with the argument that "it's the law." That is not an argument for accessibility, in my mind, it is a threat to be used when the argument fails. So, once again, I am in favor of bringing back to the fore the rights of human beings--all human beings--regardless of disability, social class, financial ability, whatever, to have equal access to information bearing on their lives. That is enough argument for accessibility. All else simply dilutes it. Charles Munat Puerto Vallarta, Mexico
Received on Monday, 4 January 1999 18:09:34 UTC