L’azile

Ok, so I have perhaps decided to start a blog though I am not completely sure yet. And I had started writing a long post explaining why I may or may not have started a blog. But then, I read something on Anne van Kesteren’s blog yesterday and got fairly irritated about it. So I decided that I would leave the existential ramblings for a later date and write about what got me so very much annoyed instead.

Anne posted an item a few days ago on the new accessible search service Google has recently unleashed onto the world. This has generated a certain amount of chit-chat in the technology field and in particular, the standards and accessibility fields, whether on blogs or various mailing lists. Unfortunately, nothing really interesting or useful has as yet been said about this new development. That is besides T.V. Raman’s post to the WAI Interest Group mailing list to explain, with the usual googlian aplomb, that Google would not disclose their criteria for ranking sites according to accessibility performance so we should just keep it simple and use our “favourite guidelines”.

In general, aside from the requisite criticism of Google’s usual disregard for standards and a few people quietly wondering about the “ghetto factor”, many view this new service as very positive, some downright applauding Google’s beau geste a scant few hours after this news hit the Web. Personally, I do not think this service is necessarily worth applauding and worry about, among other things, certain philosophical aspects but that is another story.

So anyway, I was reading Anne’s post on the subject and the comments this post generated when I got to this comment by Klaus Hartl :

“Accessibility is not about building web sites for people with disabilities.”

Wow ! I nearly fell out of my chair. I mean gee, thanks Klaus ! Glad you could clear that up for all those people working in Web accessibility for the last 10 years or so. What were they thinking ? Working in the field of Web accessibility to do what ? Make the Web more accessible for persons with disabilities ? They obviously did not get your memo.

Klaus goes on to say :

“It’s about creating web sites for all kind of users, children, old people, the disabled, the blind and visually impaired, the color-blind, the inexperienced, the impatient, the pda and mobile phone users, the search robots - creating web sites for all kind of browsers and platforms and with all data and information accessible.”

So he identifies “the disabled”, “the blind and visually impaired”, the “color-blind” as well as “old people” (who would benefit from Web accessibility if the aging process were to result in a relevant disability of some kind) but it is not about them. Or it is about them as well as children, robots, mobile devices, people who are inexperienced and, my personal favourite, the impatient.

Unfortunately, Klaus has it wrong and he is not alone as there seems to be a growing trend towards confusing accessibility with universal access (or what some people call universality or access for all). And while these two ideas are indeed closely related, they are generally well-defined concepts and they are not interchangeable (and I say this being fully aware of the usage of accessibility concepts in other fields). For reasons that I suspect have a lot to do with the fact that most people can not be bothered to look things up properly, in the last couple of years, I have witnessed, in my own milieu, the term accessibility to mean anything from : availability, affordability, usability, connectivity, interoperability, portability, etc., and yes, sometimes even in regards to the needs of persons with disabilities. Thanks to Klaus, I can now add mood altering properties to this list as well.

So why am I so exasperated ? I guess part of it is that I am always amazed to what extent people just do not listen. It is not like no one has brought this up before. Hell, even I have intervened on certain lists about this a few times (so I certainly will not repeat all that here and besides, who cares what I think). But even when an organisation like the W3C’s Web Accessibility Initiative explains it, a recognised authority on the subject, people still do not listen (though to be fair, WAI has occasionally offered inconsistent takes on the subject so it can get a bit confusing at times). But then, even when someone like l’impayable Joe Clark explains it (and no one could ever accuse this guy of being unclear), people still do not listen.

The other part of it, the most important reason why this kind of thing gets me riled up is that, unlike some people who seem to see this as a sign that persons with disabilities are being magically mainstreamed, their needs being considered on the same footing as other needs and hence, their status miraculously transitioning to that of true equality, I see this as just one more reason for people to get it wrong. To not really understand what accessibility is and therefore not adequately meet the needs of persons with disabilities. Or to weigh the needs of persons with disabilities against those of search robots, mobile phone users or, why not, people with an attitude problem. The thing is, you can not consider these different needs on the same level and I doubt it is a good idea to give people a reason to try.

I could get really paranoid and postulate that it is indicative of the continued marginalisation of persons with disabilities by going so far as to disappropriate them of their own issues or, at the very least, push them over to the sidelines with respect to something that is all about them or, most assuredly, about them in a big way.

But mostly, as I have said many times before, I am a big fan of saying what you mean. I am rather inflexible when it comes to this sort of thing. Life would be so much easier to navigate if people would just say what they mean.

And I am not a fan of the “means to an end” rationalisation that seems to be all the rage lately. I do not easily accept that something as fundamental and deep-rooted in human rights issues be downplayed just to suit a particular agenda, regardless of the fact that there may be good intentions at play. I really do believe that whatever the short term gains, there could be a lot to lose in the long run.

So there you go. My first post. Not what I expected but it is probably just as well ;)