mass-move component to LC1

EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: No rationale given.

(In reply to comment #2)
> 
> Status: Rejected
> Change Description: no spec change
> Rationale: No rationale given.

As has been pointed out in other instances in this collection of Editorial Changes, there is a need to be culturally and politically sensitive to the language we use when speaking of Persons with disabilities (or for that matter, any other community). Specifically here, there is a world of difference between those users who are blind versus those who have other visual impairments, as well as those who are profoundly deaf versus those who may have other forms of auditory disabilities. Specifically noting those differences in this prose is a form of respect.

There are ZERO substantive changes to how browsers must support these alternative mechanisms, nor how content creators must author them.

This is simply being respectful of communities and of how they wish to be known. Stop being obstructionist here, it's an EDITORIAL change, that's it - there is zero change to how authors or implementors will interact with this specification.

(Or do we really need to go down the road of TrackerIssue - I am quite happy to oblige if that's the case)

It's just s/blind/blind or visually impaired/ and s/deaf/deaf or hard of hearing/, right?

(In reply to comment #4)
> It's just s/blind/blind or visually impaired/ and s/deaf/deaf or hard of
> hearing/, right?

Correct. However each of those four user-groups/communities are different, and have different needs and requirements. Why it is so hard to acknowledge that in the spec is simply unfathomable. 

What do we gain by *NOT* adding this minor change?

John, you seem angry here. All I said was that no rationale was given, because, well, no rationale was given. I'm happy to consider requests that have rationales. I just need to know what the rationale is.

If it's just a matter of explicitly mentioning the visually impaired and hard of hearing, that's fine by me. That wasn't stated before comment 4, which is all I was asking for.

Just out of interest, is there any particular reason we should mention those who are visually impaired but not those who are colour blind? How about those with dyslexia; should they not also be explicitly listed? It's unclear to me how you are deciding which categories should be listed explicitly, and which should just be handled by the "those with other physical or cognitive disabilities" catch-all. If you could provide a general guide as to how to decide this, it would be infinitely helpful in making further edits less offensive to you and others.

Could someone provide unambiguous guidelines for determining which categories of users we should explicitly list and which it is acceptable to omit under the topic of "those with other
physical or cognitive disabilities"? The original text was intended to convey its point clearly by listing some well-known and clearly distinct categories of users with obviously differing needs, but if it is offensive then obviously it should be improved. I'm just unable to determine which categories of people would be offended if they weren't listed explicitly and which it's ok to omit.

(I asked John for this information by e-mail but did not get a reply.)

(In reply to comment #7)
> 
> (I asked John for this information by e-mail but did not get a reply.)

FWIW, I *did* reply to Ian off list on Aug 22nd, and the exchange was less than fruitful.


"Political Correctness" and sensitivity to the various communities of people with disabilities is not a binary checklist that can be applied generically by the Editor to accessibility related discussions. However, I have reprinted a White Paper (with permission) that was originally produced by the Active Living Alliance a few years back that might be of some help: it can be found at http://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/soap/resources/whitepapers/dignity 

Specific to this bug, the strategies of users who are Blind (versus users who may have any number of other vision related disabilities) as they interact with multi-media content will often be different, based upon the single criteria of having some vision versus having no vision, thus there is a distinction there that should be acknowledged. 

The same is true for users who are profoundly deaf versus users who have other types of hearing issues - once again the distinction generally being at the point of total versus partial non-hearing. For those who are profoundly deaf, there is also a socio-political distinction due to that community's use of sign language.

The proposed Editorial change in this bug has *no bearing* on the technology. It was provided as feedback to the Accessibility Task Force media sub-team by subject matter experts and members of the afore-mentioned communities, and forwarded to the W3C Editor to ensure we communicate respectfully with the various communities we interact with. What should have been a graceful acknowledgement of some political sensitivity by the Editor, has instead become a back-and-forth exchange over what appears to be a need to retain full authorship of every single line of the Specification.

Can the Editor explain to the Working Group why making this editorial change is so controversial? Is there a significant (or even trivial) impact on the technology being addressed in this Standard that makes this change onerous?

John, if you replied to my last e-mail on that thread, I never got your e-mail. Could you send it again? It was the one asking for the same as in comment 7.

(In reply to comment #8)
> 
> Specific to this bug, the strategies of users who are Blind (versus users who
> may have any number of other vision related disabilities) as they interact with
> multi-media content will often be different, based upon the single criteria of
> having some vision versus having no vision, thus there is a distinction there
> that should be acknowledged. 
> 
> The same is true for users who are profoundly deaf versus users who have other
> types of hearing issues - once again the distinction generally being at the
> point of total versus partial non-hearing. For those who are profoundly deaf,
> there is also a socio-political distinction due to that community's use of sign
> language.

Agreed. There is also a distinction between those who have dyscalculia and those who do not. And those who are susceptible to seizures and those who are not. And so on (I gave quite a long list in the e-mail I sent you). My question remains the same: how do I know which of these groups to include and which to just gloss over as "those with other physical or cognitive disabilities"?

I listed the blind and deaf explicitly because those represent two demographics clearly in need of special consideration when it comes to making video accessible, which are widely recognised as such, and which are not in the slightest bit confusing to authors who have never thought of the topic before. As such, they provide a way to rapidly introduce such authors to the realisation that they have something to do, without overwhelming them or confusing them.

Adding more demographics is a risky proposition: we have to balance making such authors realise the problem is even bigger than just the deaf and blind, without making them think the problem is so big as to be insurmountable, which might lead them to give up and not provide any accessibility features at all.

In the current text, I tried to strike this balance by listing the blind and deaf explicitly, and then pointing out that there are others to consider also. This provides the clear message mentioned above, while also suggesting to authors who are open-minded that there is more information they could find which would address even more groups of people and thus be even better, without scaring away those authors who are not ready for such a realisation.


But again I ask: if we're going to be politically correct, how do I determine which of the many groups who need something here should be mentioned explicitly, and which should be glossed over?

Incidentally:

(In reply to comment #8)
> http://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/soap/resources/whitepapers/dignity 

As far as I can tell, the spec is consistent with the wording suggested on this page.

(In reply to comment #9)
> 
> Agreed. There is also a distinction between those who have dyscalculia and
> those who do not. And those who are susceptible to seizures and those who are
> not. And so on (I gave quite a long list in the e-mail I sent you). My question
> remains the same: how do I know which of these groups to include and which to
> just gloss over as "those with other physical or cognitive disabilities"?

Ian, if you are looking for a black and white list of when and when not to mention a particular community of disabled users in specific circumstances, such a list does not exist. Further I am not going to play that game with you here, or anywhere else for that matter. 


> 
> I listed the blind and deaf explicitly because those represent two demographics
> clearly in need of special consideration when it comes to making video
> accessible, which are widely recognised as such, and which are not in the
> slightest bit confusing to authors who have never thought of the topic before.

I don't think that adding low-vision and hard-of-hearing user groups to this editorial text will be any more confusing to authors, and also signals that even within the "hearing impaired" and "visually impaired" communities that a one-size-fits-all solution is neither appropriate nor sufficient. I give authors enough credit (and apparently more than you do) to understand the difference between blind and low-vision users without being "confused", and specifically mentioning each also enhances their understanding that those 2 groups will require different adaptive strategies.


> 
> Adding more demographics is a risky proposition: we have to balance making such
> authors realise the problem is even bigger than just the deaf and blind,
> without making them think the problem is so big as to be insurmountable, which
> might lead them to give up and not provide any accessibility features at all.
> 
> In the current text, I tried to strike this balance by listing the blind and
> deaf explicitly, and then pointing out that there are others to consider also.
> This provides the clear message mentioned above, while also suggesting to
> authors who are open-minded that there is more information they could find
> which would address even more groups of people and thus be even better, without
> scaring away those authors who are not ready for such a realisation.

Thank you for a real world example of your "Handling People" strategy:

   "STAGE 2: There is a situation, but nothing needs doing."

http://ian.hixie.ch/bible/handling-people

> 
> 
> But again I ask: if we're going to be politically correct, how do I determine
> which of the many groups who need something here should be mentioned
> explicitly, and which should be glossed over?

The revised wording at the root of this bug was suggested by NCAM, who are widely regarded as both the pioneers of accessible media, as well as global leaders in that space. Their editorial advice is sound and appropriate, but seemingly you are unwilling to learn from experts, preferring instead to proudly assert you are "righter" than they. Ian, I tire of your trolling and refuse to take your bait. 

I will consult with the Accessibility Task Force whether to escalate this to an Tracker Issue and seek their consensus on next steps.

> > But again I ask: if we're going to be politically correct, how do I determine
> > which of the many groups who need something here should be mentioned
> > explicitly, and which should be glossed over?
> 
> The revised wording at the root of this bug was suggested by NCAM, who are
> widely regarded as both the pioneers of accessible media, as well as global
> leaders in that space. Their editorial advice is sound and appropriate [...]

I could live with either wording, but let's not make this a flame war and stick to the technical issues at hand.

Ian asks for an editorial rule for authoring this an other aspects of the specification in a manner that is appropriate to the community at hand. Basically the question is: why did NCAM make this call in this instance.

Let me take a guess by example: if I am an elderly person who doesn't see or hear that well any more, I do not want to be called "disabled" (as in: other physical or cognitive disabilities), nor do I want to be called blind or deaf. So, it probably makes sense to name the hard-of-hearing and visually impaired communities explicitly.

From a purely technical standpoint where their needs relate to video I can personally not see a big difference between blind and visually impaired users, nor between deaf and hard-of-hearing users. The only exception that comes to mind would be that visually impaired users that are also deaf or hard-of-hearing will want captions with a user ability to increase the font size.

(In reply to comment #12)
> 
> I could live with either wording, but let's not make this a flame war and stick
> to the technical issues at hand.

There is *no* technical issue for rejecting this bug, it is purely editorial with the Editor insisting he is right. 


> 
> Ian asks for an editorial rule for authoring this an other aspects of the
> specification in a manner that is appropriate to the community at hand.
> Basically the question is: why did NCAM make this call in this instance.

Comment #3 provided the justification for the change, and comment #8 elaborated on the reasoning.


> 
> Let me take a guess by example: if I am an elderly person who doesn't see or
> hear that well any more, I do not want to be called "disabled" (as in: other
> physical or cognitive disabilities), nor do I want to be called blind or deaf.
> So, it probably makes sense to name the hard-of-hearing and visually impaired
> communities explicitly.

One does not need to be elderly to be hard of hearing nor visually impaired (I personally know of at least 2 people under the age of 40 who suffer partial hearing-loss, and at least 1 person in 4 has some form of vision impairment, judging by the usage of glasses and contact lenses), although those issues do tend to manifest or increase with age. 

Lumping low-vision and blind users into the same user-needs community (or ditto for the deaf and H-o-H users) completely disregards how very different those communities are, how they will interact with multimedia, and what strategies authors will need to consider to be fully inclusive. 

Returning with statements about users who have Dyscalculia (a math disability), or those who are susceptible to seizures is nothing more than a smoke-and-mirrors obfuscation by the editor as an attempted means of rejecting this bug. He has not provided a technical reason for rejecting this bug other than "I listed the blind and deaf..." and "I tried to strike this balance..." - note to the Editor, there is no "I" in team (nor for that matter consensus). It was originally (politely) pointed out that the spec language missed something, and rather than making a minor editorial change, every letter, comma and period is questioned and fought over. (And then the Editor is surprised that I sound angry). 

I return to *my* original question: What do we gain by *NOT* adding this minor change?


> 
> From a purely technical standpoint where their needs relate to video I can
> personally not see a big difference between blind and visually impaired users,

Low vision users would want the ability to change contrast in captions, increase font-size of captions and sub-titles, re-position captions/sub-titles, etc. None of those requirements would matter a whit to the blind user (who would likely want/need text-based captions, as opposed to image based captions, so that they could also be rendered to alternative devices such as braille output bars). Also, low-vision users generally can still see the display/monitor, while totally blind users simply can't, so for those 2 user-groups their *entire* consumption experience is radically different. 


> nor between deaf and hard-of-hearing users.

Some deaf users will need/want sign language translations, whilst for those who have diminished hearing (those "elderly folks") sign language (for the majority) will remain a foreign language. Equally, Clean Audio would only be a useful requirement for the H-o-H community. Once again, a significant differentiator is the fact that the H-o-H community can hear *something*, while the deaf  user cannot, so *their* entire consumption experience will also be totally different.


> The only exception that comes to
> mind would be that visually impaired users that are also deaf or
> hard-of-hearing will want captions with a user ability to increase the font
> size.

I think that your recent response serves to illustrate why specifically mentioning these 4 communities improves the prose, as it then opens the door to better explanation to "authors", who despite the Editor's assertions, are actually smarter than he is apparently willing to give them credit for. Deliberately *not* mentioning the different communities here (and their attendant accommodation strategies) does not have the effect of reducing confusion, but rather perpetuating it.

(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > From a purely technical standpoint where their needs relate to video I can
> > personally not see a big difference between blind and visually impaired users,
> 
> Low vision users would want the ability to change contrast in captions,
> increase font-size of captions and sub-titles, re-position captions/sub-titles,
> etc. None of those requirements would matter a whit to the blind user (who
> would likely want/need text-based captions, as opposed to image based captions,
> so that they could also be rendered to alternative devices such as braille
> output bars). Also, low-vision users generally can still see the
> display/monitor, while totally blind users simply can't, so for those 2
> user-groups their *entire* consumption experience is radically different. 
> 
> 
> > nor between deaf and hard-of-hearing users.
> 
> Some deaf users will need/want sign language translations, whilst for those who
> have diminished hearing (those "elderly folks") sign language (for the
> majority) will remain a foreign language. Equally, Clean Audio would only be a
> useful requirement for the H-o-H community. Once again, a significant
> differentiator is the fact that the H-o-H community can hear *something*, while
> the deaf  user cannot, so *their* entire consumption experience will also be
> totally different.

Are these the only additional communities that should be mentioned?  What about, as Hixie mentioned, those with discalculia viewing videos with simple mathematics, or those with seizures viewing videos that may flash or switch often, or those with dislexia viewing text-heavy videos (for which captions may not help), or those with any number of other relevant disabilities that can potentially be accounted for and addressed?

As both Silvia and Hixie have asked, what is the criteria for deciding which to include?  If there is none besides "I know it when I see it", are you willing to review all such mentions of disabled groups and ensure that they're including all the groups you deem necessary?

Finally, recall that there is always a balance between detail and terseness.  Less text is better, because it's easier to read and understand.  More text is better, because it provides more detail.  Are you certain that these additional details are necessary and counterbalance the loss of clarity and ease-of-reading caused by the additional text?  Might it be better to just have token references that illustrate the issues, as exist currently, and have a separate, fuller guide that goes into the details of accommodating many more groups?


> I think that your recent response serves to illustrate why specifically
> mentioning these 4 communities improves the prose, as it then opens the door to
> better explanation to "authors", who despite the Editor's assertions, are
> actually smarter than he is apparently willing to give them credit for.
> Deliberately *not* mentioning the different communities here (and their
> attendant accommodation strategies) does not have the effect of reducing
> confusion, but rather perpetuating it.

Is there also confusion perpetuated by not mentioning the three groups I've listed above?  If not, why not, given your previous arguments?

(In reply to comment #14)
> 
> Are these the only additional communities that should be mentioned?  What
> about, as Hixie mentioned, those with discalculia viewing videos with simple
> mathematics,

Here Tab, let me find you a razor blade so that you can slice out an even thinner edge-case.  

But since you asked, specific to Discalculia, this is a content issue, and not a "presentation" or video issue: such users will have problems around mathematics whether presented as video, Canvas, SVG, MathMl, HTML or .txt - so let's not play games.


> or those with seizures viewing videos that may flash or switch often,
> or those with dislexia viewing text-heavy videos (for which captions may
> not help), or those with any number of other relevant disabilities that can
> potentially be accounted for and addressed?

Please stop turning this into an "angels on the head of a pin" discussion. While baiting John may seem like fun sport, it serves no-one usefully. 

At the heart of this bug is whether or not Ian is prepared to take and implement an editorial change based upon feedback from community subject matter experts. Everything else is simply redirection, obfuscation and hand-waving.


> 
> As both Silvia and Hixie have asked, what is the criteria for deciding which to
> include? 

The simple answer here is, when in doubt, ask. When corrected, learn. 

Understanding and respecting community norms, expectations, language and protocols is an anthropological exercise that requires you immerse yourself into that community to observe, listen and learn. This holds true whether that community is an aboriginal tribe from the South American rain-forest, or a community of people with a shared disability. The folks at NCAM (who provided this feedback) have put in the time: they have listened to and worked with numerous disability groups since the early 1990's*, as they have both pioneered and professionally worked toward making media accessible to those communities. 

For more than 20 years NCAM have consulted with, and worked with, groups and organizations such as the National Association of the Deaf, the National Federation of the Blind, the American Council of the Blind, the American Foundation for the Blind, the US Federal Access Board, the Federal Communications Commission, the Advanced Television Systems Committee, the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, the Consumer Electronics Association, IMS Global Learning Consortium, Adobe, Apple, CDC, Yahoo! and Verizon.

Are you suggesting that individually Hixie, Silvia or yourself would know better than them? Or can you accept the axiom: when corrected, learn. 

(* http://ncam.wgbh.org/about/background)


> If there is none besides "I know it when I see it", are you willing
> to review all such mentions of disabled groups and ensure that they're
> including all the groups you deem necessary?

"I" won't do anything unilaterally - however the various members of the Accessibility Task Force are all reviewing the HTML5 specification to ensure that it meets the needs of the many communities of disabled users on the web. Collectively we are specifically looking at technology (for example: Hit Testing in Canvas), guidelines (example: Alt Text Guidance), and appropriate language usage (as in this bug). Unlike the ego-driven "I" that is pushing back on this editorial change, the recommended change came from a community of people with a vested interest in this particular issue - of accommodating user groups consuming video: not Canvas, not SVG, not math videos or disco-light flashing videos, nor any other specific edge case, but in general, and with regard to "video" - period.

> 
> Finally, recall that there is always a balance between detail and terseness. 
> Less text is better, because it's easier to read and understand.  More text is
> better, because it provides more detail.  Are you certain that these additional
> details are necessary and counterbalance the loss of clarity and
> ease-of-reading caused by the additional text?

I will point to comment #4 (from you) where you posed the question:

   "It's just s/blind/blind or visually impaired/ and s/deaf/deaf or hard of
hearing/, right?"

...to which I replied affirmatively.

I will allow you the opportunity to explain specifically how these 2 minor edits add confusion, diminish ease-of-reading or introduce loss of clarity. 


>  Might it be better to just have
> token references that illustrate the issues, as exist currently, and have a
> separate, fuller guide that goes into the details of accommodating many more
> groups?

Might it not be better to have the Editor get down off his horse and accept that this one sentence could be improved by adding the 2 minor edits suggested?  That in the grand scheme of things this minor editorial change has already taken up way too much time, time that would be better spent working on real problems?  That even he might not always get it 100% right? Commit the change and let's move on already, or is there a real TECHNICAL reason for not doing so?

(In reply to comment #12)
> 
> Let me take a guess by example: if I am an elderly person who doesn't see or
> hear that well any more, I do not want to be called "disabled" (as in: other
> physical or cognitive disabilities), nor do I want to be called blind or deaf.
> So, it probably makes sense to name the hard-of-hearing and visually impaired
> communities explicitly.

That seems like a reasonable rationale, thanks.

John and Hixie both have good points. The text needs to be meaningful and respectful, but it shouldn't overwhelm the reader.

The best approach (in my experience) is to reference broad categories of disability, rather than specific conditions. For this to be successful, the categories need to be recognisable, as well as socially accepted.

Recognition is the easier of the two to achieve. For example, the phrase "people who are blind or partially sighted" will be more easily understood than "people with Diabetic retinopathy, Macular degeneration, Achromatopsia..." and so on.

There's a little more subtlety involved with the social acceptance aspect. Not least because there are a couple of layers to consider.

People who are Deaf consider themselves distinct from people who are hard of hearing. This form of self identification stems from the fact that Deaf people sign as their first language. You might therefore describe someone as Japanese, French, or Deaf. This concept is further re-enforced in countries such as the UK, where British Sign language is an officially recognised national language.

The differences between blind and partially sighted people haven't given rise to any form of social identity. If you ask someone to describe their sight related disability though, they will almost always put themselves into one category or the other...

With all four of these groups there are quite distinct requirements in terms of assistive technology/accessibility. For example, someone who is Deaf may have literacy difficulties, as well as being unable to hear. This is far less likely in someone who is hard of hearing. Similarly, someone who is partially sighted may be able to perceive image based content in the original, where as someone who is blind will not.

Where things become more complex is with cognitive and physical disabilities. As with blindness, partial sight, deafness or hearing impairments, there are myriad conditions that cause cognitive and physical disabilities.

The principal difference is that the conditions that cause cognitive or physical disabilities are not categorised into socially recognised groups. Medically speaking there are (of course) quite distinct categories, but these don't really translate into recognisable social identifiers.

Silvia also raises a very good point. Many people, particularly people who acquire disabilities as a consequence of aging, may not identify themselves as disabled at all.

So, this is why the text suggested by John would be preferable. It's short enough to be sensible, uses phrases that are recognisable by most people, and respects the social wishes of the people being described.

Hixie asked how to approach the task of finding the right balance. My suggestion would be to use text along the following lines, wherever there is a need to reference people with different disabilities:

* People who are Deaf or hard of hearing.
* People who are blind or partially sighted.
* People with cognitive disabilities.
* People with physical disabilities.

I don't want to start off another linguistic argument here, so worth explaining that "partially sighted" and "visually impaired" are completely interchangeable. The term “partially sighted" has greater resonance in the UK, where as "visually impaired" may be the more common term in the US. Either is absolutely fine to use in the spec text though.

Hope some of this helps.

EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Accepted
Change Description: see diff given below
Rationale: see comment 16

FYI:

A rule of thumb that I've found useful in distinguishing which communities are worth mentioning separately is to explicitly mention those that rely on different accessibility technology to work with the Web: e.g. blind users need screenreaders to use the Web, partially sighted users usually get away with screen magnifiers. So it makes sense to separate out these groups.

This approach arrives basically at the same list that Leonie gave (but her explanation being much more eloquent):
* People who are Deaf or hard of hearing.
* People who are blind or partially sighted.
* People with cognitive disabilities.
* People with physical disabilities.