Re: Issues: Part 2 - #16 through #43

Under the WHO/NIDRR model of disability, impairments and disabilities are 
two different things.  An impairment is caused by pathophysiology, and
describes the inability to contract the muscles of the lens of the eye, to
contract a muscle, and similar types of difficulties.  A "functional
limitation" is the inability to perform an action because of an impairment.
A person who is unable to discriminate text below 14 pt. has a functional
limitation.  A disability is the inability to perform a task in the
environment under consideration.  The inability to read a web page that is
displayed in a small font is a disability.

Note that these are medical terminology, and have specific meanings.  Hence,
the term "visual impairment" is exactly the right term for us to use when
talking about accommodating to a persons abilities so that they have access.
If we do not accommodate, then the person has a disability.

Denis Anson

----------
>From: Bryan Campbell <bryany@pathcom.com>
>To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Issues: Part 2 - #16 through #43
>Date: Wed, Nov 24, 1999, 6:38 PM
>

> 10:54 AM 24-11-99 -0500 Madeleine Rothberg <Madeleine_Rothberg@wgbh.org>
wrote:
>>Here are some comments on a variety of issues raised by Eric Hansen,
>>snipped from Ian's recent reply.
>>>EH: > Issue #37. Reconsider the use of the term "visual impairment".
>>> In our organization, the term is considered insensitive (unfair). Use
>>> "visual disability". The preferred terms can change, but keeping up with
>>> the preferred terms is important.
>
>>MR: my organization does use the term visually impaired, but
>>if others feel it is out of date WAI could decide to drop it.
>
> Hiya!
> I'm a person whose disabled with Cerebral Palsy so I deal with significant
> motor impairment. Disabled or disability seems to deal with the general
> instance while impairment describes a somewhat specific diminution of
> ability, both words are useful. Moreover, context can make anything
> insensitive & is best dealt at that time. Most vital here is that we give as
> much information as we can to harried developers so they produce very usable
> programs. To that end everyone should read "First Principles of Design"
> http://www.asktog.com/basics/firstPrinciples.html
>
> 2 musts are: {Quote "Effective interfaces do not concern the user with the
> inner workings of the system. Work is carefully and continuously saved, with
> full option for the user to undo any activity at any time.
>
> Effective applications and services perform a maximum of work, while
> requiring a minimum of information from users." Unquote}
>
> It maybe that mainstream UAs aren't asked to do enough in particular regards
> Guildlines 4 & 10 while the section of the page named "Efficiency of the
> user" suggests searching for links is too much work for folks
>
> [snip]
>>MR: I can't locate the first mention of the "captions vs closed captions"
> issue.
>>I'd like to weigh in that I think the term "closed captions" is useful in
>>distinuishing between information intended to replace audio tracks, and
>>typically intended for use by people who are deaf, and any other thing called
>>a caption, such as a photo caption or table caption. Because closed captioning
>>is quite well known, I think it is helpful to continue using that term in that
>>context
> [snip]
>>Madeleine Rothberg
>>The CPB/WGBH National Center for Accessible Media
>
> When the group has input from someone in a given field it should follow her
> lead. That ensures the Guildline are understood in general, public terms
> beyond the Accessibility realm. Ms Rothberg makes the excellent point
> "closed captions" are understood as a means of also having a moving text
> display of audio output. The option has been on every TV set sold for many
> years while many Web pages offer display of a photo or caption that is a
> text description of 1 photo analogous a to newspaper caption of a photo. The
> timing of Ms Rothberg's note shouldn't affect it usefulness
>
> Regards,
> Bryan
>
> ->"It has been said the pebbles can't stop the avalanche, guess the pebbles
> didn't have access to the Web!"
>
>

Received on Thursday, 25 November 1999 22:47:09 UTC