WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: What is Web Accessibility?

for

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Mar 23, 2006 1:10PM

On 3/23/06, Austin, Darrel < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
> > So the answer is to pretend that it's not REALLY about those
> > embarrassing cripples, and all about the soccer dads pushing
> > their future football stars down the curb?
>
> Why are you trying to play the victim here?


How am I playing a victim? I'm lost here. How am I claiming to be
victimized?

How does 'accessible for
> all' label those with disabilities as 'embarassing cripples' while
> emphazising soccer dads?


Because "accessible for all" is brought out as a counter to "accessibility
is about people with disabilities" -- something that you'd think shouldn't
be controversial among people who understand web accessibility, but
apparently is.

My only point is that it's easier to sell accessibility to business when
> they see the total sum of who it benefits. That is not 'marginalizing'
> those with disabilities. It is including them.


It's not always easier to sell it that way. Why not say "web accessibility
is about people with disabilities (but benefits other people too)?"

I really don't understand why that is shocking.

But, we can certainly disagree.
>
> > PS: Since 1990, far more accessibility improvements have
> > been made in towns and cities across the U.S. thanks to the
> > ADA than have ever been made because city commissioners want
> > to improve things for inline skaters and parents with
> > strollers. True fact.
>
> That's my entire point. It took an act of congress to pass a law for
> people to start caring about accessibility.


That's not your point, though. Your point was that accessibility is just so
magically business-friendly that people will go out of their way to do it
without needing government interference.

It didn't work that way before. It hasn't worked that way so far on the web.

Had folks understood the broader benefits to it, perhaps improvements
> would have come sooner and faster.


What makes you think that? Even now, the only reasons people put in physical
accessibility requirements are either (a) they're selling to audiences that
are likely to have disabilities (e.g. the elderly), or (b) they're required
to by law. And the latter one is even bigger than (a).

I don't want to have congress pass laws for web sites in the US. I'd
> rather we as web developers do the right thing first.


Why not have Congress pass laws for web sites? Laws that guarantee civil
rights such as access to commerce are a valid type of law. I am all in
favor of civil rights legislation to outlaw discrimination against people
with disabilities.


> If you prefer to 'guilt' companies into embracing accessibility as
> something to help the 'embarrassing cripples' and it works, more power
> to you.


"Embarrassing cripples" is a characterization of the attitude that hides
away disabled people from discussion of web accessibility. It's not MY take
on it.

My take is not to "guilt" them either. My approach is to say that
accessibility is a moral and legal right. There's nothing weak or guilty in
that -- in fact, it comes from a power of strength.

I prefer to point out the broad range of benefits that
> accessibility can bring...from accomodating not only those with
> particular disabilities, but also a wide variety of other users.


Accessibility can bring benefits, sure. So in other words, you're saying
"web accessibility is about disabled people (and it benefits people without
disabilities)".

Right? So why are you so shocked by me saying it?

--Kynn