disabilities

[Tim Cross]

Bruno Girin writes:
 > On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 02:18 -0500, Kenny Hitt wrote:
 > > Hi.
 > > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 02:08:11AM +0100, Phillip Whiteside wrote:
 > 
 > [snip]
 > 
 > > > I asked on the forum for someone to check and see if my coding was correct -
 > > > I had exactly zero replies back.  How do you expect me to push forward
 > > > people to include the minor code changes as they are learning when none of
 > > > "you" are even prepared to see if it is correct?
 > > > 
 > > I don't know for sure, but there are likely very few disabled people on the standards committy.  There
 > > is likely a token member, but the real power is with sighted people who consider this as just
 > > some cool project and don't really get that there delay causes real problems for the disabled.
 > 
 > There are more than disabled people on standard committees than you
 > think. In practice, the problem is not with web and accessibility
 > standards themselves, they are with their implementation in browsers and
 > how well (or not) they are followed by web site designers. My experience
 > in the industry is that there are very few designers who are aware of
 > standards and why they should be followed. And even when they are aware
 > of accessibility standards, they don't understand them well enough to
 > argue the case for following them, especially when it is perceived that
 > following the standards will increase the development cost. I constantly
 > face this problem in my day job: every time I need to write
 > specifications for a new web based system, I include accessibility
 > guidelines and invariably I get answers like "that will increase the
 > cost by X" or "that will delay delivery by Y" when it's not an outright
 > "we can't do that".
 > 
 > 
 > > 
 > > > So, I shrug my shoulders and say "well, at least I tried".
 > > > 
 > > > It is not my loss that you have gotten yet another person do that, it is
 > > > your loss as a group.
 > > > 
 > > Actually, it is my loss since I don't know anything about web design or standards.
 > > Once again, I'm not part of the "group" you are talking about.  I'm just a user who is loosing access to more and more
 > > sites because some "educated" sighted people don't get it and don't listen.
 > > The "educated" sighted people in this case are the web standards group.
 > > BTW, my experiences with Firefox and Gnome are making me do the same as you.  I am finding myself
 > > lumping all sighted people into the same group of fuckers who don't get it.
 > > This is bad for both of us.
 > 
 > It's true, as a person with no disability, it took me a long time to get
 > it. And I don't think I completely get it yet but at least I'm now able
 > to make a judgement call on whether some code uses techniques that are
 > likely to cause accessibility issues. This is to be expected: it is
 > extremely difficult for someone who does not have a given disability to
 > understand what it is like to live with that disability. In fact, I
 > suspect it is difficult for a blind person to understand the challenges
 > faced by people with motor disabilities for instance.
 > 
 > What really opened my eyes was attending a talk by Robin Christopherson
 > from AbilityNet [1] at the @media conference [2] a few years ago. What
 > made the difference was not the content of the presentation but the fact
 > that it was delivered by a blind user and got me to see first hand what
 > issues blind people face when using a computer. And that's the problem
 > with accessibility: even with the best will in the world, it's
 > impossible for non-disabled people to understand the challenges faced by
 > disabled people without witnessing them first hand. And very few
 > developers ever see first hand the software they produce used by
 > disabled users.
 > 
 > All this to say that to solve accessibility problems, we need to talk to
 > each other and understand that "getting it" is very difficult for able
 > people. Which means that able people need to be ready to listen and see
 > their assumptions and "cool ideas" challenged; while disabled people
 > need to be patient in explaining why a particular design doesn't work
 > for them and suggesting constructive alternatives.
 > 
 > [1] http://www.abilitynet.org.uk/webteam#robin
 > [2] http://atmedia.webdirections.org/
 > 
 > Bruno
 > 
Hi Bruno, 

I pretty much agree with what you wrote. I've known a number of people on the
standards committees, all of which have had some form of disability. 

A few things I would add......

* Standards are a very very difficult thing to formulate. As you point out,
  many of the browser implementations either fail to implement the standard
  correctly or just ignore it because it makes things too complex or too
  expensive. I think this is largely due to the difficulty in being able to
  express the standard in a non-ambiguous way. More often than not, failure to
  comply with a standard is due to misunderstanding or misinterpretation of
  the standard. 

* Standards are difficult because ther are so many separate parties with their
  own agenda they want pushed. Look at the issues that have arisen with HTML
  5. At one point, the standard was going to define the format to use for
  audio and video. In the end, this was dropped because those involved could
  not come to an agreement. I suspect this is mainly because major players
  like Adobe, Microsoft and Apple had their own technology they wanted to
  push. Look at other standards, such as the ANSI standard for Common Lisp.
  This took years to finish and many argue that it destroyed the language.
  Many of the issues were due to the fact the language had developed for years
  without any standard and they wanted to both keep as much backward
  compatibility as possible and make it as easy as possible for all commercial
  vendors to become compliant with the standard. 

* There is no single model that will represent the requirements of someone
  with a disability. Even within one small disability group, such as blind or
  deaf or those with impaired motor skills etc, the range and impact is
  different. Furthermore, the individual's ability to work with their
  disability varies enormously as do their requirements. I am frequently asked,
  as someone who is blind and is a software developer, to check to see if a
  new bit of software or website is accessible. Frequently, I have to say that
  I find it accessible, but many other blind users would not. This is
  partially because I have a better than average technical skill, have
  developed my own tools and techniques and possibly because I'm also very
  stubborn and refuse to let a machine get the better of me. 

* Different people have different desires and needs. This is also true amongst
  those with a disability. For example, I don't use Orca or speech-dispatcher.
  I use one tool, emacspeak. With that tool, I have been able to hold down
  a senior management position running a large corporate data centre, project
  manage large development projects with multi-million dollar budgets, and 
  been the senior sys admin for a large ISP. I now have returned to
  development rather than management because I love technology. My preferred
  tool has provided me with all I need. Some will ask, but how do you use
  facebook, or youtube or .... and my answer is I don't. I have no interest in
  these things and my tool provides me with what I need. However, another
  person with exactly the same level of disability but with different needs
  would find my tol completely useless. This difference in needs and desires
  means that it is very difficult to develop one true solution or specify one
  comprehensive standard to meet all our needs. 

Part of the reason adaptive technology is not more advanced than it is is
because we are dealing with a very complex issue. There is no one right
solution that will satisfy everyone. This is an area that will never be solved
- it does get better and improvements do happen, but we need to realise that
it is evolving and will need constant and continious work. 

Likewise, the importance of education, both for those with disabilities and
those wihtout, cannot be under stated. We need to avoid creation of 'us' and
'them' paradigms. It is a mistake to lump people into groups and become angry
or disallusioned because people 'don't get it'. We need to both learn and
understand the dynamics of the situation and find ways to educate and inform.
We need to be aware of the differences and the facts that just because we have
a disability doesn't mean we understand it. We need to recognise that some are
better able to deal with their disabilities than others and we need to realise
that as a community, we are a reflection of the wider non-disabled society. We
have some who are bitter and angry, some who are self reliant and some who
believe society owes them, some who are victims and some who are not and some
who blame the world and some who do not. 

Likewise, we all have different perspectives on what should and should not
happen. I frequently get frustrated with disabled people who constantly find
problems and focus on what is wrong rather than on what can be done to make
things better. I've come across many with a disability who believe others need
to change to meet their needs. While I agree there should be more awareness
and recognition of special needs and while I would hope as a society we see
such things as being very important and will argue in support of programs to
address the inequalities, I also think we have a responsability to inform and
educate and adapt as much as possible rather than try to make tthe rest of the
world adapt to our needs. I also try to remember, when I get frustrated, that
we all have different abilities and requirements and we all need to deal with
our own situation in whatever way we can. In the end, I remind myself that
nowhere is it written that life is meant to be fair and its not anyones fault
I have a disability and nor is it anyones problem except mine. 

Tim


-- 
Tim Cross
tcross at rapttech.com.au

There are two types of people in IT - those who do not manage what they 
understand and those who do not understand what they manage.