6 ms·

What is the current best word to use?

VBprogrammer 7y ago
It's probably culture / location dependant. In the UK disabled or lesser-abled would probably be preferred. I'd probably have skirted the issue by saying it may exclude people using screen readers.
- GhostVII 7y ago
  Avoiding discussing a particular issue simply because you don't want to refer to people as handicapped or disabled seems absurd to me. Language is a tool, and we shouldn't reduce it's effectiveness simply because we are afraid of offending someone. Some people in the world are disabled, I think it is far more offensive to avoid talking about them then to use the term disabled or handicapped - how do you think it would feel to be a disabled person, and have people think that it is so offensive that they don't even feel comfortable saying that disabled people have a hard time on the modern internet?
  - VBprogrammer 7y ago
    I don't think we should avoid discussing the issue at all. But I also feel that groups have the right to determine what they find acceptable as a collective noun. If disabled people in the UK are uncomfortable with the term handicapped then I won't use it; that has been the case for as long as I can remember so it struck me when I read it.
    - GhostVII 7y ago
      I was more referring to you saying you would skirt the issue rather than using the term disabled or handicapped. If there is an alternative word that is less offensive, of course there is no problem with using it if it means the same thing.
      - VBprogrammer 7y ago
        Ah, I see what you mean. No, the issue I intended to skirt was choosing the most appropriate label, not the whole issue that JS may make websites less accessible.
    - raxxorrax 7y ago
      It could very well be true that disabled people are more offended by third parties policing language, especially if the expression was used in a neutral context. Because that can be very humiliating and shifts the topic to something many people want to overcome in their lives.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      > But I also feel that groups have the right to determine what they find acceptable as a collective noun. The group of people with disabilities is not one hive mind with a collective opinion of which nouns they prefer: some will like some terms and some won't. Handicapped seems to be generally accepted as inoffensive to most people, so I don't see any reason to not use it.
      - VBprogrammer 7y ago
        That's your call. I couldn't have been clearer that this applies to my understanding of the majority view within the UK. If those people aren't part of your audience then knock yourself out.
      - reshie 7y ago
        i agree and is a very neutral term for a wide range of disabilities. now cripple would have some negative connotations to it. though i suppose context and use of any term could be used to degrade especially something like this which does point to capabilities but because of a condition and specific to the disability.
        VBprogrammer 7y ago
        > "Handicapped" is a word which many disabled people consider to be the equivalent of nigger. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3708576.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3708576.stm I wouldn't describe it as neutral at all.
        reshie 7y ago
        i would not put it in that category but i did address how it could be construed. how would you describe the term handicap in the form of a lack in capability specific to the disability?
- leppr 7y ago
  In 10 years we will be back to preferring "handicapped" as "disabled" slowly slides into offensive territory and we still need a word to talk about this concept. Grandparent was probably just being considerate of future Internet Archive readers.
- fluffything 7y ago
  Yeah, in my culture / location we call them "people that have to go through extra obstacles".
Frondo 7y ago
In the US, go with "visually impaired." That's an accurate description without any baggage, and it also tells you what needs to be done to make the technology accessible to them. It also describes people who might have limited sight now, but will have full sight later (recovering from surgery, etc). And that is something that could happen to any of us, so we should be building all our tech to cover at least common edge cases, if resources don't permit covering all of them.
edraferi 7y ago
I tried to think of a good synonym (“differently abled” “visually challenged”) but nothing really felt right. I think the phrasing itself is problematic because it describes some people as broken or less than whole. That puts the emphasis on something wrong with a person rather than something wrong with the system. Better to talk about the system: “this makes the site less accessible.” Because really, that’s the issue. It’s what you have control over and where the problem lies. Software engineers can change a websites but not the people using them. People should expect websites to accommodate their needs, not the other way around. Respect is the core principle here. Respect your users and enable them to come as they are. Don’t place the focus on their weaknesses, regardless of what those are or why they have appeared. Focus on how you can build a system that’s accessible to everyone.
- Angostura 7y ago
  > “this makes the site less accessible.” They problem is that when someone then ask - "to whom", you are left being unable to answer.
  - VBprogrammer 7y ago
    Is that really an issue though? A website could be made less accessible to people with low powered devices, slow connections or small screens, their accessibility issues need not be medical. Practically, there is no way to identify all the potential issues a user of your site might face.
- ekianjo 7y ago
  > can build a system that’s accessible to everyone. you can't build something that is accessible to "everyone". It's a myth. Because some people will stray so far away from the "median capabilities you can expect", you can't even imagine their problems or use cases. It's a very, very hard problem and well known in numerous areas of product design.
  - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
    This is true, but also overly pedantic -- we can give the original poster a more generous reading and assume that they understand that "make this available to everyone" doesn't literally mean accessible to every single person imaginable. ("Your web site isn't accessible to people without computers! Checkmate!") We can work to make our systems more accessible to more people.
thedaemon 7y ago
I work for a non-profit that helps disabled children and their families in the USA. Up until recently we were using "special needs", now it's "disabled" or disability. This is what the people with disabilities want to be called currently and I hope this helps.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > This is what the people with disabilities want to be called Like most large communities, there is less consensus on this than that kind of statement suggests. The terminology doesn't change because everyone in the community flips over night in their preferences, but because the ebb and flow of how many people do each term preferable (or intolerable) ends up changing what is on balance the best (or least bad) term.
wilsonrocks 7y ago
People with disabilities. Emphasises 'people' rather than their disability.

It's probably culture / location dependant. In the UK disabled or lesser-abled would probably be preferred. I'd probably have skirted the issue by saying it may exclude people using screen readers.

GhostVII 7y ago
Avoiding discussing a particular issue simply because you don't want to refer to people as handicapped or disabled seems absurd to me. Language is a tool, and we shouldn't reduce it's effectiveness simply because we are afraid of offending someone. Some people in the world are disabled, I think it is far more offensive to avoid talking about them then to use the term disabled or handicapped - how do you think it would feel to be a disabled person, and have people think that it is so offensive that they don't even feel comfortable saying that disabled people have a hard time on the modern internet?
- VBprogrammer 7y ago
  I don't think we should avoid discussing the issue at all. But I also feel that groups have the right to determine what they find acceptable as a collective noun. If disabled people in the UK are uncomfortable with the term handicapped then I won't use it; that has been the case for as long as I can remember so it struck me when I read it.
  - GhostVII 7y ago
    I was more referring to you saying you would skirt the issue rather than using the term disabled or handicapped. If there is an alternative word that is less offensive, of course there is no problem with using it if it means the same thing.
    - VBprogrammer 7y ago
      Ah, I see what you mean. No, the issue I intended to skirt was choosing the most appropriate label, not the whole issue that JS may make websites less accessible.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    It could very well be true that disabled people are more offended by third parties policing language, especially if the expression was used in a neutral context. Because that can be very humiliating and shifts the topic to something many people want to overcome in their lives.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    > But I also feel that groups have the right to determine what they find acceptable as a collective noun. The group of people with disabilities is not one hive mind with a collective opinion of which nouns they prefer: some will like some terms and some won't. Handicapped seems to be generally accepted as inoffensive to most people, so I don't see any reason to not use it.
    - VBprogrammer 7y ago
      That's your call. I couldn't have been clearer that this applies to my understanding of the majority view within the UK. If those people aren't part of your audience then knock yourself out.
    - reshie 7y ago
      i agree and is a very neutral term for a wide range of disabilities. now cripple would have some negative connotations to it. though i suppose context and use of any term could be used to degrade especially something like this which does point to capabilities but because of a condition and specific to the disability.
      - VBprogrammer 7y ago
        > "Handicapped" is a word which many disabled people consider to be the equivalent of nigger. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3708576.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3708576.stm I wouldn't describe it as neutral at all.
        reshie 7y ago
        i would not put it in that category but i did address how it could be construed. how would you describe the term handicap in the form of a lack in capability specific to the disability?
leppr 7y ago
In 10 years we will be back to preferring "handicapped" as "disabled" slowly slides into offensive territory and we still need a word to talk about this concept. Grandparent was probably just being considerate of future Internet Archive readers.
fluffything 7y ago
Yeah, in my culture / location we call them "people that have to go through extra obstacles".

Frondo 7y ago

In the US, go with "visually impaired." That's an accurate description without any baggage, and it also tells you what needs to be done to make the technology accessible to them. It also describes people who might have limited sight now, but will have full sight later (recovering from surgery, etc). And that is something that could happen to any of us, so we should be building all our tech to cover at least common edge cases, if resources don't permit covering all of them.

edraferi 7y ago

I tried to think of a good synonym (“differently abled” “visually challenged”) but nothing really felt right. I think the phrasing itself is problematic because it describes some people as broken or less than whole. That puts the emphasis on something wrong with a person rather than something wrong with the system. Better to talk about the system: “this makes the site less accessible.” Because really, that’s the issue. It’s what you have control over and where the problem lies. Software engineers can change a websites but not the people using them. People should expect websites to accommodate their needs, not the other way around. Respect is the core principle here. Respect your users and enable them to come as they are. Don’t place the focus on their weaknesses, regardless of what those are or why they have appeared. Focus on how you can build a system that’s accessible to everyone.

Angostura 7y ago
> “this makes the site less accessible.” They problem is that when someone then ask - "to whom", you are left being unable to answer.
- VBprogrammer 7y ago
  Is that really an issue though? A website could be made less accessible to people with low powered devices, slow connections or small screens, their accessibility issues need not be medical. Practically, there is no way to identify all the potential issues a user of your site might face.
ekianjo 7y ago
> can build a system that’s accessible to everyone. you can't build something that is accessible to "everyone". It's a myth. Because some people will stray so far away from the "median capabilities you can expect", you can't even imagine their problems or use cases. It's a very, very hard problem and well known in numerous areas of product design.
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  This is true, but also overly pedantic -- we can give the original poster a more generous reading and assume that they understand that "make this available to everyone" doesn't literally mean accessible to every single person imaginable. ("Your web site isn't accessible to people without computers! Checkmate!") We can work to make our systems more accessible to more people.

thedaemon 7y ago

I work for a non-profit that helps disabled children and their families in the USA. Up until recently we were using "special needs", now it's "disabled" or disability. This is what the people with disabilities want to be called currently and I hope this helps.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> This is what the people with disabilities want to be called Like most large communities, there is less consensus on this than that kind of statement suggests. The terminology doesn't change because everyone in the community flips over night in their preferences, but because the ebb and flow of how many people do each term preferable (or intolerable) ends up changing what is on balance the best (or least bad) term.

wilsonrocks 7y ago

People with disabilities. Emphasises 'people' rather than their disability.