Re: Inclusion or accessibility

> Charles suggested Sean might like to ponder on how we
> raise the profile of inclusion.

The profile is already high, people just don't have a name for it.

On a form describing me lately that I had to verify as being legally
correct, under "disability" it had "mental illness". Great. "So that's the
latest box that you're going to compartmentalize the already boxed-in (pun
intended) 'agoraphobics' into, is it?", I thought. On a similar note, blind
people aren't deaf to the ignorant comments that they often receive.
Inclusion is a silly thing; feeling warm and fuzzy is not important.

Ignorance is everything, accessibility would be dead without it (in the
"Newspeak"-style).

> I'm after about 3 years at wai getting a feeling that accessibility
> doesn't describe what is needed and maybe inclusion does.

So you're saying that inclusion has been excluded?

> I don't know that they should be separate and there certainly
> is plenty of crossover.

Magic boxes can still an enabled person make, so yes, I think there is. But
I don't know what you want me to do about it? O.K., so by proxy of William
Loughborough and Aaron Swartz, you have raised awareness in myself, but I'm
not sure what to do with that. Advertising campaign? Leaflets through the
door? Spam (spam, spam, spam, spam, spam...)?

We can't hand out little magic boxes to everyone and then take them away.
TS. You can create badly designed sites like Peepo (no text labels to the
images? How am I supposed to know what they lead to?!), but that's only a
minor step IMO. As I say, ignorance is everything: sometimes, you cannot
make blindless people see.

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .

Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2001 00:18:44 UTC