 |
 |
Hi there not wishing to blunder into a debate which I think has probably nearly dried up anyway, but some of the words used in it could be upsetting to people with disabilities. Reference to > I was not familiar with the term, but a brief web search shows universal > design as having as specific meaning of design for a wider, more > diverse, range of users, such as those who are physically different from > a normal adult - children and the disabled, (and in my world I might > include dogs and cats). People with disabilities are "normal" - whatever that term may mean and they prefer to be included in the term rather than being referred to as "the dsiabled". This sort of division and exclusion is what causes the most problems in terms of accessibility and universal design. Also the word "handicap" is not used in todays more social model (where it is the environment and society, rahter than the person wich causes the disability and improving society and the environment reduces the disability) orientated world of disability since it carries the same conotations as "cripple" and is a legacy from the religious model (where your disability is a punishment from whichever god you subscribe to for a sin either you, or your parents commited in either this or a previous life). We all have to learn these things so I am not criticising those who wrote them. Just hoping that if they are interested in universal design from an accessibility angle they will want to approach it in an open-minded manner. marcus SURFACE (Salford University Research Focus on Accessible Environments) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%