Re: Re[2]: Ability taxonomy bh

Jim,
	I have no problem avoiding the semantic classification "disabled". 
Some people find this term pejorative, I do not. As long as everyone who
wishes to access the web can then we accomplish the same, desirable,
endpoint while avoiding classifications.
	What concerns me is that the programmers involved with writing
accessable software, and that people who write and approve grants for the
same, and that politicians who take an interest in this issue, understand
that the meaning of access is different to different people. 
	In the context of the dev-access mailing list the term 'access'
seems to mean access for people with vision impairments.  That is fine, I
realize that is one of the most difficult areas to accomodate. Trace, T.V.
Raman, and others are to be commended on there work for the vision
imaired. But realize that those of us who see and work with disabled
people every day know that there are many, many people with other physical
obstacles to web access. In terms of shear numbers, these 'other' disabled
people- spinal cord injured, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, ALS,
stroke, traumatic brain injured, etc- vastly outnumber the blind web user.
The hardware and software modifications necessary for these people to use
the web are not trivial.  
	Does this matter? Yes it does. By making the web accessable to the
blind user you have done little to make it usable or useful for a high
quadraplegic, or a cerebral palsy patient, or a stroke patient with a
visual field deficit. Will all of our research dollars be funneled into
screen readers? Is the WAI working group aware of the breadth of the
problem facing the disabled as a whole when 'they' collective try to
logon? I do not know. However, I do know that the dev-access list, the
basr list, and Trace in general all seem to focus their attention on 
vision impaired users.
							

 On Wed, 21 May 1997 jim@arkenstone.org wrote:

> 
>      I read some of this discussion of taxonomy and clients providing 
>      disability specific information to the server with some concern.
>      
>      I just finished service on the Telecommunications Access Advisory 
>      Committee, which was a federal committee under the U.S. Access Board 
>      charged with recommending regulations under the Telecomm Act of 1996.  
>      U.S. makers will be covered by the final regulations, which are 
>      currently out for public comment, when they go into effect later this 
>      year.
>      
>      The disability consumer groups were very concerned about being 
>      labelled as disabled persons in their interactions with the Web, 
>      knowing that all such data gets collected and that collected data 
>      usually gets abused.  I would argue against building disabilities into 
>      the specifications explicitly, and focus instead on the accomodations 
>      being requested.  Plenty of people who are sighted want the 
>      information provided to blind people, either because of some other 
>      disability, personal preference or some characteristic of the 
>      equipment they are using.
>      
>   Jim Fruchterman                    jim@arkenstone.org
>   President                          Arkenstone, Inc.
>   555 Oakmead Parkway                1-800-444-4443
>   Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA            1-408-245-5900
>   "Information Access for Everyone!" Fax: 1-408-328-8484
>   http://www.arkenstone.org     
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________ Reply Separator 
> _________________________________
> Subject: Re: Ability taxonomy bh
> Author:  w3c-wai-wg@w3.org at Internet
> Date:    5/21/97 10:04 AM
> 
> 
> Recently there was a rough consensus on the list in favor of 
> special-need descriptors being sent from client to server as 
> part of format negotiation.
>      
> I think that we should make "the taxonomy of abilities and special 
> needs" that these message attributes employ a development item, 
> and that we should try to rope the doctors mentioned below into 
> this task.  Paul has contributed on this point on the dev-access 
> mailing list.
>      
> --
> Al Gilman
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul C. Coelho, MD
Resident Physician (R2)
University of Washington
Dept. of Rehabilitation Medicine
pcoelho@u.washington.edu
coelho.paul@seattle.va.gov
pcoelho@pcoelho.deskmail.washington.edu
Physiatry Forum :
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~pcoelho/netforum/physiatryforum/a.cgi/1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Friday, 23 May 1997 15:04:01 UTC