Re: [WSG CORE] RE: 'users with disabilities' WAS: [WSG] New front page for http: //ab c.net.au/
James Ellis wrote: I think John, Betty, Steve or Jane are always more preferable labels, if my drift is seen ;), otherwise, the person tends to become the label in societal eyes. [snip] The moral for us? Accessibility is for everyone, not just for a group deemed disabled... and politics sometimes gets in the way). That's all really well said, James. IMO that's it, in a nutshell. Funny we should have been talking about this cos my cousin, whose daughter has Autism and who is working really hard to form a support organisation for parents of newly-diagnosed children with Autism, just wrote to me after I'd asked about her use of an upper-case A for the word Autism. I thought I'd quote here for those who are interested in this discussion and in being politically correct in their accessibility terminology: Officially, it is a capital letter A because it's a label, like Mr or Mrs etc. There are so many politics with Autism. Like we are not supposed to say Autistic children, we are supposed to say Children with Autism. The reasoning for that one is they are children first. (I should add that this is in Australia since there are clearly international variations in terminology.) Vicki. :-) -- Vicki Berry DistinctiveWeb http://www.distinctiveweb.com.au ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: 'users with disabilities' WAS: [WSG] New front page for http: //ab c.net.au/
Return Receipt Your RE: 'users with disabilities' WAS: [WSG] New front page for document http: //ab c.net.au/ : was Ian Kershaw/patrick received by: at: 08/08/2005 12:05:46 PM ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG CORE] RE: 'users with disabilities' WAS: [WSG] New front page for http: //ab c.net.au/
Hi I think John, Betty, Steve or Jane are always more preferable labels, if my drift is seen ;), otherwise, the person tends to become the label in societal eyes. Interestingly, dis comes from the latin and can mean absence, bad or similar. See: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dis- http://www.answers.com/topic/dis-prefix?method=6 definitely a negative prefix. So, disability could literally mean bad ability or an abscence of ability. Well, everyone has this in some form or another : lack of a sense (smelling, hearing... whatever), someone with their blinkers on, someone with selective hearing etc etc. The moral for us? Accessibility is for everyone, not just for a group deemed disabled... and politics sometimes gets in the way). HTH James ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: 'users with disabilities' WAS: [WSG] New front page for http://ab c.net.au/
'Users with Disabilities' is better than 'disabled users' generally, however, when referring to deaf users, it depends on whether the user is culturally deaf or not. Culturally Deaf users are those that use sign language for communication and belong to the deaf community. They're referred to as the big 'D' deaf. In my experience, most Deaf users would not like to be referred to as disabled as they do not consider themselves to be disabled. This is Important to note Other deaf users are usually referred to as hearing impaired or deaf (no capital). Ahem, being that I am Deaf and very actively involved in local and state-level communities in my little part of the U.S., I can tell you that there are precious few people who do not consider themselves Deaf who also would bristle at the term hearing impaired. Hard of hearing is a better accepted term. The term deaf isn't real widely used except when referring to a broad population, such as when talking about the deaf community. Hearing impaired is a term used by people who don't realize or understand what they are talking about, to describe Deaf or hard of hearing people. Regarding the preference for dropdowns, that doesn't surprise me. Deaf and hard of hearing people (especially those fluent in a sign language - ASL, BSL, USL) are exceptionally visually oriented. When a menu drops down rather than flying out, it's easier to read and navigate down. The information related to that menu item is closer to the item than when additional menu choices fly out to the side (with multiple choices listed vertically), which is a bit jarring. It's also less effort than to try to keep the mouse within the hot spot to navigate sideways, then down to the desired link. Leslie Riggs Hope that helps and is not too off topic?? Lisa Terrence Wood wrote: I wonder why people with hearing disabilities requested dropdowns, is this result (statistically) valid, or just observed within your group? btw, I'm pretty sure the correct term to use users with disabilities. kind regards ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: 'users with disabilities' WAS: [WSG] New front page for http: //ab c.net.au/
Hi Leslie, Thanks for that, it's interesting to hear from the states about this and I was hoping that there were some Deaf members on the list :) It would be great to hear from anyone here in Australia on this point too. Just to clarify my point, I was using 'big D' Deaf for culturally Deaf and 'little d' deaf for (as you said) in reference to the broader deaf population. In my experience (I have worked professionally as an Auslan interpreter for about ten years) 'hearing imparied' is used here (australia) for culturally deaf people too (I wasn't clear there). I've noticed that 'hard of hearing' is not really used by younger deaf in the deaf community but also by older non-culturally deaf ie deaf through age, but I could be wrong and am happy to be corrected by any aus deaf. I can really only speak locally and am not sure about the states. Hearing impaired is a term used by people who don't realize or understand what they are talking about, to describe Deaf or hard of hearing people. This is definitely not my experience here in australia, in fact, I used to work for a department that was known as the 'Deaf and Hearing Impaired' support unit at TAFE (college here) that managed interpreters and note takers and other educational support. The word document [Issues in Educational Settings for Deaf Students and Interpreters] http://tinyurl.com/8ffee uses 'Hearing Impaired' frequently and is written by an Australian Deaf author, so I suspect it is a regional difference. All the best, lisa -Original Message- From: Leslie Riggs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 4 August 2005 4:00 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: 'users with disabilities' WAS: [WSG] New front page for http://ab c.net.au/ 'Users with Disabilities' is better than 'disabled users' generally, however, when referring to deaf users, it depends on whether the user is culturally deaf or not. Culturally Deaf users are those that use sign language for communication and belong to the deaf community. They're referred to as the big 'D' deaf. In my experience, most Deaf users would not like to be referred to as disabled as they do not consider themselves to be disabled. This is Important to note Other deaf users are usually referred to as hearing impaired or deaf (no capital). Ahem, being that I am Deaf and very actively involved in local and state-level communities in my little part of the U.S., I can tell you that there are precious few people who do not consider themselves Deaf who also would bristle at the term hearing impaired. Hard of hearing is a better accepted term. The term deaf isn't real widely used except when referring to a broad population, such as when talking about the deaf community. Hearing impaired is a term used by people who don't realize or understand what they are talking about, to describe Deaf or hard of hearing people. Regarding the preference for dropdowns, that doesn't surprise me. Deaf and hard of hearing people (especially those fluent in a sign language - ASL, BSL, USL) are exceptionally visually oriented. When a menu drops down rather than flying out, it's easier to read and navigate down. The information related to that menu item is closer to the item than when additional menu choices fly out to the side (with multiple choices listed vertically), which is a bit jarring. It's also less effort than to try to keep the mouse within the hot spot to navigate sideways, then down to the desired link. Leslie Riggs Hope that helps and is not too off topic?? Lisa Terrence Wood wrote: I wonder why people with hearing disabilities requested dropdowns, is this result (statistically) valid, or just observed within your group? btw, I'm pretty sure the correct term to use users with disabilities. kind regards ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: 'users with disabilities' WAS: [WSG] New front page for http: //ab c.net.au/
Herrod, Lisa wrote: Hi Leslie, Thanks for that, it's interesting to hear from the states about this and I was hoping that there were some Deaf members on the list :) It would be great to hear from anyone here in Australia on this point too. I'm Australian and I'm hearing impaired, I'm also hard of hearing and without a hearing aid I am profoundly deaf. I have a disability therefore I'm a disabled user, and I'm also a user with a disability and I'm also hearing impaired and physically impaired. It just amazes me the importance people attach to labels. How can people get offended by a truth? My hearing is *not* normal. It's a fact and I'm not ashamed of it and though sometimes I get humiliated it's not because of labels! I do understand the Culturally Deaf's position that they don't have a disability, but for the rest of us that live in the hearing world... I don't understand the big deal. Call me what you will (but try to keep it polite... haha). As a web user on dialup (not as a deaf person or a web designer) I prefer dropdowns *only* for sites very deep in levels of content and in with just one or two levels in themselves, to facilitate fast navigation, for all the usability reasons previously mentioned (less clicks, visual impression of site content, etc etc.) Accessibility does not have to suffer if the navigation is marked up in lists and alternative navigation is available for those with motor difficulties. (I nearly wrote disabilities but don't want to offend anyone!) Just my 2 cents plus GST! Vicki. :-) -- Vicki Berry DistinctiveWeb http://www.distinctiveweb.com.au ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: 'users with disabilities' WAS: [WSG] New front page for http: //ab c.net.au/
Vicki, Well said, sane and funny. Thank you. Nigel -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vicki Berry Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 4:57 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: 'users with disabilities' WAS: [WSG] New front page for http: //ab c.net.au/ ... I have a disability therefore I'm a disabled user, and I'm also a user with a disability and I'm also hearing impaired and physically impaired. It just amazes me the importance people attach to labels. How can people get offended by a truth? My hearing is *not* normal. It's a fact and I'm not ashamed of it and though sometimes I get humiliated it's not because of labels! ... Call me what you will (but try to keep it polite... haha). ... ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: 'users with disabilities' WAS: [WSG] New front page for http://ab c.net.au/
As usual it all depends who you ask. In the UK the social model of disabilities means that 'disabled people' is preferred over 'people with disabilities' since disabled people implies barriers put in place by society, such as an inaccessible web site. People with disabilities reads/sounds more like the person has 'baggage', which in most cases is definitely not the case. Cheers, Alistair Knock www.accessall.co.uk Quoting Herrod, Lisa [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 'Users with Disabilities' is better than 'disabled users' generally, however, when referring to deaf users, it depends on whether the user is culturally deaf or not. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: 'users with disabilities' WAS: [WSG] New front page for http: //ab c.net.au/
All in how each person views it, I suppose. My (not) hearing *is* normal... For me, the humiliation lies in the obvious misperceptions of people I meet every day - it's amazing what people will assume you can't do, simply because you don't have or use a particular physical feature. To bring this back to topic, I have met with hearing prospects and worked to explain different concepts in web design, and been asked things like, Following web standards is all well and good, but how are you going to stream the audio when you can't hear it, if you can't do it this? How do you know your method will WORK? Makes for very interesting entries in my offline personal journal :) Leslie ... I have a disability therefore I'm a disabled user, and I'm also a user with a disability and I'm also hearing impaired and physically impaired. It just amazes me the importance people attach to labels. How can people get offended by a truth? My hearing is *not* normal. It's a fact and I'm not ashamed of it and though sometimes I get humiliated it's not because of labels! ... Call me what you will (but try to keep it polite... haha). ... ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: 'users with disabilities' WAS: [WSG] New front page for http: //ab c.net.au/
Leslie Riggs wrote: Following web standards is all well and good, but how are you going to stream the audio when you can't hear it, if you can't do it this? How do you know your method will WORK? Some people can be thick -- even when well-intentioned. But on the subject of streaming -- I find that very few streaming broadcasts use captioning. Most television broadcasts have closed captioning as mandatory and the ability to transmit text with radio broadcasts is being used (although, more as an added feature). I imagine the wild-west unregulated state of the web makes such enforcement difficult at best. I am sure there would be howls of protest if some licensing, such as an FCC license for broadcasting, would be mandatory for the web -- and perhaps there should be some citizens band version of the web (which the spammers will overrun) and a professional version. Interesting thought... Dwacon www.dwacon.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: 'users with disabilities' WAS: [WSG] New front page for http: //ab c.net.au/
Conyers, Dwayne wrote: Leslie Riggs wrote: Following web standards is all well and good, but how are you going to stream the audio when you can't hear it, if you can't do it this? How do you know your method will WORK? Some people can be thick -- even when well-intentioned. But on the subject of streaming -- I find that very few streaming broadcasts use captioning. Most television broadcasts have closed captioning as mandatory and the ability to transmit text with radio broadcasts is being used (although, more as an added feature). I imagine the wild-west unregulated state of the web makes such enforcement difficult at best. WCAG Priority 1: 1.1 Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element (e.g., via alt, longdesc, or in element content). This includes: images, graphical representations of text (including symbols), image map regions, animations (e.g., animated GIFs), applets and programmatic objects, ascii art, frames, scripts, images used as list bullets, spacers, graphical buttons, sounds (played with or without user interaction), stand-alone audio files, audio tracks of video, and video. 1.3 Until user agents can automatically read aloud the text equivalent of a visual track, provide an auditory description of the important information of the visual track of a multimedia presentation. 1.4 For any time-based multimedia presentation (e.g., a movie or animation), synchronize equivalent alternatives (e.g., captions or auditory descriptions of the visual track) with the presentation. FWIW, Captioning is relatively easy these days, even *if* different vendors use different implementations of SMIL. Of the 3 major methods/formats I've played with (QT, Real and Flash), Flash was the easiest, and given the widespread deployment of the plug-in probably the most universal of the three. If/when it comes to real-time however, all bets are off smile, as it still is somewhat labor intensive at the development end. I am sure there would be howls of protest if some licensing, such as an FCC license for broadcasting, would be mandatory for the web -- and perhaps there should be some citizens band version of the web (which the spammers will overrun) and a professional version. Interesting thought... Please, no... JF -- John Foliot [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca Web Accessibility Testing and Services http://www.wats.ca Phone: 1-613-482-7053 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: 'users with disabilities' WAS: [WSG] New front page for http: //ab c.net.au/
It's an uphill battle. Accessibility is a hot topic these days, but online streamed video and audio access by way of captioning or subtitling for the Deaf / hard of hearing is very poorly implemented. Even the big sites crowing about how their websites meet and even exceed accessibility guidelines still don't have captioning available with their video or audio clips. It could just be an honest oversight on the part of the site developers, or it could be a management decision based on resource availability issues, or ??. A dream of mine is to see the development of reliable, high-quality speech to text technology built into QuickTime, Real, Windows Media Player, etc. so that captions are created on the fly that users turns on through user preferences within the application. I have submitted feedback requests to many of the news sites (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) but have not heard or seen any responses. I doubt the FCC could enforce such a thing as licensing. They don't have jurisdiction across the entire Web. I don't even want to think about the implications of licensing requirements. UGH. I already have a headache Leslie But on the subject of streaming -- I find that very few streaming broadcasts use captioning. Most television broadcasts have closed captioning as mandatory and the ability to transmit text with radio broadcasts is being used (although, more as an added feature). I imagine the wild-west unregulated state of the web makes such enforcement difficult at best. I am sure there would be howls of protest if some licensing, such as an FCC license for broadcasting, would be mandatory for the web -- and perhaps there should be some citizens band version of the web (which the spammers will overrun) and a professional version. Interesting thought... Dwacon www.dwacon.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** Some people can be thick -- even when well-intentioned. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
