Talk:XO Accessibility: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (New page: == Regarding the word "disabled" == As a "disabled person" myself, I'm not thrilled about the use of the terms "disability," "handicap," "differently abled," "conditions," and so forth - ...) |
(comment) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
As a "disabled person" myself, I'm not thrilled about the use of the terms "disability," "handicap," "differently abled," "conditions," and so forth - but I can't think of better short words to express the same concept concisely. Ideas for this are very much welcome. [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 23:04, 27 May 2008 (EDT) |
As a "disabled person" myself, I'm not thrilled about the use of the terms "disability," "handicap," "differently abled," "conditions," and so forth - but I can't think of better short words to express the same concept concisely. Ideas for this are very much welcome. [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 23:04, 27 May 2008 (EDT) |
||
: The term "disabled" may certainly be offensive, but worse than that, it is simply too vague to be useful. You may have low audio bandwidth (hearing-impaired), but anyone that thinks you are disabled hasn't tried to keep up with your wiki edits :-) |
|||
:Terms that are specific enough to be useful (e.g. hearing-impaired, deaf, low-vison, blind) can differentiate between "low bandwidth" and "no bandwith" sensory input. The "no bandwidth" terms are unfortunately somewhat emotionally-loaded from historic mis-application, but they are short and accurate, if applied properly. As for motor dysfunction, it is somewhat harder to specify and unfortunately further muddied by misappropriation of meaningful clinical terms (e.g. spastic) by popular misuse as pejorative terms. My suggestion is to try to be specific and the terminology tends to come across as less judgmental. [[User:Cjl|Cjl]] 01:17, 28 May 2008 (EDT) |
|||
Revision as of 05:17, 28 May 2008
Regarding the word "disabled"
As a "disabled person" myself, I'm not thrilled about the use of the terms "disability," "handicap," "differently abled," "conditions," and so forth - but I can't think of better short words to express the same concept concisely. Ideas for this are very much welcome. Mchua 23:04, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
- The term "disabled" may certainly be offensive, but worse than that, it is simply too vague to be useful. You may have low audio bandwidth (hearing-impaired), but anyone that thinks you are disabled hasn't tried to keep up with your wiki edits :-)
- Terms that are specific enough to be useful (e.g. hearing-impaired, deaf, low-vison, blind) can differentiate between "low bandwidth" and "no bandwith" sensory input. The "no bandwidth" terms are unfortunately somewhat emotionally-loaded from historic mis-application, but they are short and accurate, if applied properly. As for motor dysfunction, it is somewhat harder to specify and unfortunately further muddied by misappropriation of meaningful clinical terms (e.g. spastic) by popular misuse as pejorative terms. My suggestion is to try to be specific and the terminology tends to come across as less judgmental. Cjl 01:17, 28 May 2008 (EDT)