- From: Charles F. Munat <chas@munat.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 19:53:43 -0700
- To: "WAI Interest Group \(E-mail\)" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Over the past few weeks this list has seen much discussion about the meaning of accessibility and the role that graphics and multimedia play in helping people with cognitive disabilities. One of the points made in this discussion is that text-only sites are unfair to people with cognitive disabilities. I don't think that this is necessarily the case, and I'd like to explain why. I realize that I will be vilified by some for expressing a view that may seem at first rather politically incorrect. Over the past fifty years great strides have been made in making our societies fairer and more just. The civil rights movement, the feminist movement, the gay rights movement, and the efforts to increase access for people with disabilities have brought us much closer to a truly egalitarian society. In the process, the word "discrimination" has become associated with narrow-mindedness, bigotry, and injustice. The result is a sort of knee-jerk reaction on the part of many whenever an action appears discriminatory. I propose, however, that discrimination is not only positive, but also vital to our survival as a species. We discriminate thousands of times a day, most often without any conscious thought. When I choose what I want to eat, where I want to go, what I want to say or do, I am discriminating. When we grade our students, critique our art, reward the winners of contests, or present awards and prizes for outstanding performance, we are engaging in discrimination. Yet who would argue that these acts of discrimination are wrong? In fact, our laws are discriminatory. That's their entire point. They discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Should we do away with laws because they discriminate? Discrimination is only a problem when it is *unfair* discrimination, that is when the basis for the discrimination is irrelevant to the situation at hand. For example, if I charge a higher price to some clients because of their sexual preferences (or their sex or their color, etc.), I am discriminating unfairly. Sexual preference, sex, color, etc. is irrelevant to the service I provide. Put another way, there is nothing unfair about imprisoning a rapist, but there is something very unfair when an African-American rapist gets life while a European-American rapist committing the same crime gets five years. In both instances we are discriminating, but in one we are discriminating very unfairly. Viewed in Web terms, if I design a real estate site in a manner that makes it inaccessible to the blind, I've discriminated unfairly. Vision or lack of same is not relevant to the sale of real estate. On the other hand, if I'm building a site to train city bus drivers, is it unfair to deny access to the blind? It might be if there were information available not directly related to driving a bus, but in the absence of such information, I contend that it is not unfairly discriminatory. Blind people do not drive buses. When we are dealing with issues such as vision, hearing, or physical disabilities, it is not that difficult to decide when discrimination is unfair. But when we get into the realm of cognitive disabilities, things get tricky rather quickly. To me, the key to deciding whether a site is discriminating unfairly or fairly is audience. To whom is the site addressed? If a site is intended to bring doctors up to date on the latest techniques for microsurgery, I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to rewrite the text to make it understandable by lay persons, let alone by a user with Down's Syndrome. But that's an extreme example. Let's try one a little more complicated: Should the IRS site be designed to accommodate those who cannot read? I say: maybe. Or rather: partially. I am a reasonably bright guy with a good grasp of English. Frankly, the standard 1040 form is pretty close to Greek to me already. Yes, I'm all for explaining the form simply (or better yet, simplifying the form itself), but I must ask, if a person can't read or write, how is he to complete the form? And if a person has a serious learning disorder, should he even attempt such a task? Perhaps a better solution is to provide free filing assistance to people with cognitive disabilities (or better yet, to everyone). If there is a reasonable chance of making a part of the IRS site understandable to a person with a learning disability, then by all means make it understandable. But where do we draw the line? Some seem to think that all such lines are evil, but I disagree. There is a point where such efforts become an exercise in futility. Another consideration is cost. In a perfect world, cost would be no object. But then in a perfect world, there would be no disabilities. The reality is that most web sites are cash strapped to begin with. Providing multiple translations, commissioning graphics or multimedia, etc. is expensive. Most of my clients can barely afford a site, let alone expensive graphics and multimedia. I'm not concerned about scaring away giant corporations with the WCAG because a) frankly, they can afford it and b) no-one is going to scare them away anyway. But I am concerned about pricing small businesses, non-profit organizations, and individuals out of the Web. If you think that telling people NOT to use graphics is off-putting, try telling them that they MUST use graphics. So what does this have to do with the WCAG? Well, take a look at the current working draft of version 2.0: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20000928 Pay particular attention to Guideline 3: Design for ease of comprehension. There are many items here that give me pause, but to keep this posting to an only slightly outrageous length, consider 3.7: Supplement text with graphic or auditory presentations where they will facilitate comprehension of the content. Let's say that I wrote a novel and I decide to put the full text on-line for people to download. Is my site inaccessible because I didn't supplement the novel with pictures? But as published on paper it had no pictures. The reason? The intended audience was readers. The on-line version is identical, but suddenly it's inaccessible? Would my site be denied a AAA rating based on this? And if the WCAG should at some point become enforced by law (certainly within the realm of possibility), would my site be illegal? And if so, would my paperback novel be illegal also? Should all novels be forced into comic book format from here out? As you can see, this is not a simple issue and the answers are not, IMO, obvious. I think that Wayne Myers was right on the money when he wrote about accessibility vs. understandability. It is one thing to ensure that documents are available to everyone regardless of disability. It is quite another to try to make them understandable. The current draft of WCAG 2.0 blurs the line between these two concepts even further than WCAG 1.0 did. As I see it, Guideline 3 is more "nice to do" than "need to do." Whether it's suggestions apply depends on both the purpose of a site and it's intended audience. A government site intended for the general public might need to follow all of these guidelines (and the funds to make that possible should be made available). But another site, such as my hypothetical on-line novel, might not need to follow any of the suggestions in Guideline 3 to satisfactorily serve it's intended audience. Finally, consider this: What if a person with a cognitive disability wants to put up a web site? Should he or she be required to comply with the WCAG? (Not an easy proposition since the guidelines are text-only and the language is certainly not "the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site's content.") If a blind man builds a web site, does he have to include graphics? If a deaf woman builds a site, must it include audio? I don't know that I have the answers to these questions or even that there are simple answers. As the current draft of WCAG 2.0 stands, I like section 3. I think the suggestions are good suggestions. But I also think that they require good powers of, yes, discrimination. I worry about how they may be i nterpreted in a world where most people seem to prefer black and white. I also wonder how we are going to measure understandability. It is one thing to say that site A doesn't work on screen reader B or that site C provides visual information not accessible to blind users. How do we decide when a site is understandable enough? WCAG 2.0 says "appropriate for a site's content," but who decides this? I wonder if anyone else on this list has had any thoughts on this matter... Sincerely, Charles F. Munat Seattle, Washington
Received on Saturday, 21 October 2000 22:48:46 UTC