Comments on: Campaigning: A (brief) Guide for Inclusion

By: codeman38

codeman38 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 03:29:55 +0000

Also on the text-only note, a page which is pure HTML styled with CSS can easily be transformed automatically, via a server-side script, into a plain text version. This is true even if it uses images for navigation or decoration; those can be tagged with alternative text which could be extracted by the script.

By: KatieT

KatieT — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:08:27 +0000

This is an awesome post. I especially appreciate the acknowledgment of conflicting accessibility needs. I love that discussions here go beyond just “make things accessible” to talking about what that looks like and what issues may arise.

I just want to add that accessibility for fat people can often easily be included in this. This can look like making sure that there are seating options for folks who may not fit into most chairs and that aisles are wide enough etc. While it is debatable whether or not fatness in itself is a disability (and perhaps a discussion for another time), the common thread is that all bodies (and brains) should be able to participate. I guess I just want to acknowledge the overlap.
KatieT´s last blog ..Refusing to Wait: Anarchism and Intersectionality

By: Mia

Mia — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:01:59 +0000

Fair enough. Just as long as it is understood that that’s not *THE* solution for accessibility, otherwise you end up doing the web equivalent of putting in a ramp at the back entrance of a building and assuming that’s all you have to think about.

By: Anna

Anna — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:28:08 +0000

*nodnod* Mia, but if one is looking for quick and dirty, a text only option is at least a starting point.

By: Mia

Mia — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:05:05 +0000

Actually, among people working in accessible web design/development, the text-only alternative is becoming less popular. Most standard HTML can be made perfectly accessible (to the blind and visually impaired, for who the text-only alternative is most frequently presented as a solution), although it can have some benefit to people with some learning/cognitive disabilities. Key things is to have graphics described appropriately, use the correct mark-up for the proper elements (including making accessible PDF documents (though why not just do them in HTML?)). And non-mouse accessibility (for people with vision impairments and dexterity impairments) is important.

By: sanabituranima

sanabituranima — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:52:07 +0000

I’m sorry that my words came across as making a demand, or saying you can’t say anything if you’re not going to speak in a certain way. That’s certainly not what I meant, although I can see how, when often the demand is “accommodate whatever it easiest to accommodate, and don’t think about how this might affect other people”, it would come across that way.

Ok. Understood. Sorry.
sanabituranima´s last blog ..Identity Development Questionnaire

By: Jesse the K

Jesse the K — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:58:34 +0000

This is crucial
“often the demand is ‘accommodate whatever it easiest to accommodate, and don’t think about how this might affect other people’”

Because sometimes accommodations do clash, and we have to be aware of this, and not try to wish it away. When we avoid acknowledging these real conflicts, we’re susceptible to “divide and rule.”

The non-disabled city engineers can say, “Well, there are more people with vision impairments than wheelchair users, so I won’t be installing curb ramps” (since a sloped curb lacks a readily discernible boundary between footpath and street). Or as happened in the US, some blind political advocates campaign to prevent detectable warnings (bumpy bright yellow floor tiles) on the grounds that adequately skilled blind travelers shouldn’t need them. That POV lasted 15 years, even after the ADA passed.
Jesse the K´s last blog ..With Glee! as a news hook, mainstream media acknowledges actors with disabilities

By: Anna

Anna — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:19:32 +0000

Yes, this is why I didn’t insist that people need to look up and speak clearly, they just need to be aware that when they don’t, people with hearing loss will find it difficult to understand what they’re saying.

There are other ways around that, including providing material in a different format, such as in print.

By: peanutbutter

peanutbutter — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:15:55 +0000

I suppose in that case, we would have to use written notes or some kind of interpreter, because if I can’t see your face, I literally can’t understand you. Full stop. It’s not me being mean or unreasonable or refusing to compromise.

Back to the OP (original post[er]), I can’t count the number of times political emailers send me a freaking uncaptioned video for their message, expecting me to fork over $$. I’ve tried numerous times to complain about this, but have never gotten any responses.

By: sanabituranima

sanabituranima — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:45:43 +0000

“When you mumble and look down when talking, it’s very hard for people who have hearing loss to understand what you’re saying.”

This is an awkward issue. Your statement about hearing loss is true.

HOWVER, it is also true that:

1. When you emand that everyone looks at who they’re talking to, you’re making life very difficult for autistics. See here http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/?p=110

2. When you say “You can’t say anything if you’re goingto make your words inaccessible by mumbling” you make it impossible for people with various speech disorders and/or breathing problems to speak.
sanabituranima´s last blog ..For Danni