Friday, 8 March 2019

Including the unincluded

Image result for deafblind formatsCharity media unable to respond to concerns deaf-blind e.g. are unable almost totally to access deaf or HoH media. As one poster put it.....


"I'm inclined to agree deaf-blind and deaf with vision impairments must be struggling to follow this website.  I suspect the reason is a wider acceptance deaf-blind go to own sites and areas, just like deaf signers or HoH do, its an issue often brought up here about inclusion being a myth in that regard.  

Most minorities don't understand inclusion in its basic reality, or what is required from mainstream or from them.  Whilst different and dedicated areas exist then inclusion cannot because mainstream or even the same people with different formats won't expect to see wider inclusion with own or mainstream areas if that access format isn't theirs.  A perfectly accessible site would they say, be unviewable too.  

This particular forum hasn't the tools to alter visual formats that's another issue. (Changing background and foreground colours text size etc), or even adding signed accompaniment to text postings for those deaf who use that because 98% of posters don't actually sign and the sheer cost of translating the forum is prohibitive.

Note: ATR uses black background/lighter text, but not all deafblind want or need that.  Signers want sign and nil captions, others want no sign and captions only, lip-readers abandoned the entire concept of accessible speech.

It's all very well minorities angry they aren't included, but, they demand own areas at the same time, which undermine the point.  Whole areas of the Internet are dedicated, singular, minority areas, albeit most of those AREN'T in the formats they actually prefer, it is text mostly. And utilising singular formats pushes others away from it as they struggle to follow.  There is no one size fits all, albeit text is the nearest to it."

No comments:

Post a Comment

RSVP, but, Nicely.