WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

RE: What is Web Accessibility? From the W3C

for

From: Arnold, Tim
Date: Mar 24, 2006 10:50AM


Hi all,

I mostly lurk and read. I finally have something to say, and apologize
if I come across as a buttinsky. This has, at times, seemed to be a
pretty charged discussion, and my aim is certainly not to further that.
I just care very deeply about Web Accessibility, and spend a lot of time
trying to convince people that it's the right thing to do. Even people
who agree with me seem to loose their commitment when they really see
what it's all about.

So, here I go...

Darrel Said:
"The argument that a building should have a way to enter the front door
without using the stairs because of a social responsibility to
accommodate those in wheelchairs is fine."

Absolutely! And this would be defined as "Accessibility," though I'd
say it considerably more strongly than "fine."

Darrel Said:
"The argument that a building should have a way to enter the front door
without using the stairs because it benefits the stroller pushers is
fine."

Yes! But this does not fall under "Accessibility," and certainly is a
"fine" requirement.

Darrel Said:
"Ideally, one wanting to spread the ideals of accessibility/universal
access would bring up both benefits in the same conversation."

Very true. But let's not change the definition of "Accessibility" to
include everything else simply so that we can use a single word, or
because it's easier to "sell" to clients. To do so is a disservice to
those living with disabilities; we (and by "we" I mean designers
concerned with accessibility) have been working too hard to get
"Accessibility" recognized as being important to now say that the needs
of disabled citizens are about on a par with people on roller blades.
The mother with a stroller can always opt to not use a stroller -- hell,
I got through two kids without using one of the heinous things;). A
person with a spinal cord injury who uses a wheelchair doesn't have the
same choice. They are not the same thing and should be called what they
are. If we just keep saying it, and using the correct words for it,
then others will learn.

Like Zara said:
"'say what you mean.' If you mean availability or connectivity or
affordability or any other term mentioned above, then just say it."

Darrel said:
"My point that I've tried to communicate is that accessibility isn't or,
at least, shouldn't be about including one group at the exclusion of the
other. It's not JUST about strollers, and nor is is just about
wheelchairs. There's nothing to be gained by excluding either of those
groups."

The argument I and others have tried to put forth is not about excluding
anyone's needs. It's about calling things what they are, being clear,
and stating over and over again why they are important. Until someone
listens. The problem is in applying "Accessibility" with too broad a
brush. It really doesn't include strollers. That's not to say that
strollers are unimportant, it's just to say that are not about "access."
Talk about them together with clients if it will help, but don't tell a
disabled person that their issues are the same as anyone else with
wheels. It's offensive not to listen to what the people you claim to be
advocating for say. Basically, when someone says, "As a person with a
disability who has been working on this for a long time..." it's not
helpful to say "yes, but.."

My apologies if any of this seems to be directed at anyone personally.
I'm using Darrel's comments because they were made a few minutes ago,
and seem to represent things that others have been saying.

Cheers,
Tim


__________________________

<EMAIL REMOVED>