Re: [DDN] universal design (was: Web 2.0 leaves out people..)
Claude Almansi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Norbert, I am no way a specialist of universal design - I don't > design, let alone universally - so I hope others will answer your > question as to its use for fighting the discriminations you list > below. Claude, thanks a lot for sharing these valuable thoughts and reminding me that "universal design" is a term with an already pretty fixed meaning (which alas happens to be much less broad than I would have liked it to be, despite the adjective "universal" being part of the term). I suppose what I'm looking for is a broader alliance encompassing more concerns than juts the areas of concern which are being addressed by what is (at least currently) understood as being "universal design". The kind of broader alliance that I have in mind could perhaps be called "universal freedom design alliance": In addition to the concerns addressed by what is currently called "universal design", topics of concern would also encompass "electronic freedom" topics including privacy topics, freedom to use encryption, freedom to use software that you can be freely modified without being as a consequence locked out from impottant information sources, etc. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Informatics Management and Consulting for Adaptability and Benefit/Cost Optimization in Harmony with Human Rights and Needs ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@digitaldivide.net http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
Re: [DDN] universal design (was: Web 2.0 leaves out people..)
Hi Norbert and All
Norbert, I am no way a specialist of universal design - I don't
design, let alone universally - so I hope others will answer your
question as to its use for fighting the discriminations you list
below. Tentatively, between your items:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Norbert Bollow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>(...)
>
> Hmmm... there are also other forms of discrimination against
> minorities which involve closely related economic mechanisms:
>
> - discrimination against developers and users of minority computer
> operating systems through use of patented or otherwise restricted
> proprietary data formats
UD probably can counter that through being in the end more
attractive/competitive than these restricted formats. See MS
acknowledging that ODF has won at the Red Hat Summit in June ("Red
Hat Summit panel: Who 'won' OOXML battle?"
).
Or did I misunderstand your question.
>
> - discrimination against people who for whatever reason want or
> need to avoid indiscriminately leaking personal information
> over the internet
UD probably doesn't help there, as far as I can understand: thinking
of the various Google offers that could be described as fitting UD
definition, but bank on folks accepting to trade in part of their
privacy.
>
> - discrimination against people who for whatever reason have only
> slow and/or expensive access to the internet, or who are only
> able to conveneinetly access the internet via a device with a very
> small screen, such as a mobile phone. (In absolute numbers, this
> is probably currently actually a majority, but from the perspective
> of many websites, this is a very small minority of their users,
> therefore the same economic mechanisms apply.)
UD can help there, I believe: accessible sites made according to UD
principles also load faster and also work better on the devices you
mention - besides, Roberto Ellero, whom I mentioned as advocate of UD
in my former post, lives in a part of Italy where the only internet
access on a computer so far is 56 kb/s ("when the wind is blowing from
the right direction", adds a friend of mine who lives in a similar
area, access-wise) and is still able to manage the webmultimediale.org
site under these conditions ;-)
>
> Claude, is the "universal design" collaboration which you describe
> defined so generally as to also encompass these aspects of
> universality of design which are not directly related to disabilities
It is defined far more generally than for just access for disabled
people. But - see above - it does not, as far as I know, encompass the
privacy issue.
>
> If yes, I think I'll probably be looking into whether there'd be some
> mutually beneficial way in which I could join in into that "universal
> design" alliance... and if not, I'd be interested in discussing
> whether it would make sense to attempt to initiate a more broadly
> defined alliance.
Not sure about an existing single UD alliance: for the Web, there is
IWA iwanet.org, but you also have architects and engineers advocating
UD: see for instance Fred Tepfer, architect and planner, who works at
the University of Oregon ,
whose
page with the "tire swing cartoon" I adapted in
.
And that was Roberto Ellero's point in his video: the coming together
of UD advocates both in the real world and the online world about the
obstacles of Calatrava's bridge. (BTW, just as inaccessible sites are
a pain for people with slow connection or handheld devices, the bridge
obstacles do not only hamper people in wheelchairs, but also parents
with a pram or carting things with something that has wheels).
So I don't know whether such a unique general alliance between
advocates of UD in all fields will come to light, but it is a good
sign that in Italy, they've started collaborating.
Best
Claude Almansi
___
DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list
DIGITALDIVIDE@digitaldivide.net
http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide
To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE
in the body of the message.
[DDN] universal design (was: Web 2.0 leaves out people..)
Claude Almansi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > About universal design: an interesting collaboration between advocates > of universal design for both real-life and online accessibility has > started in Italy in the last week [..] > "some analogies can be seen, if you have been dealing with these > issues for some years, be it on the Web or in the physical world: > there are analogies between architectural and digital obstacles. There > are also analogies in the ways problems get solved, and in the defects > in these attempts to solve problems. One immediately obvious example > is the fact that the best, most efficient way to produce a work -- be > it a Web video or site, or be it a bridge or a work of architecture -- > a work that is is harmonious, complete and doesn't discriminate > anyone. > This way is accessible planning, i.e. a planning that keeps > accessibility in mind and respects the principles of "Design for all". > (...) this analogy between both worlds is confirmed by the fact that > an a posteriori adaptation, as the "egg-way" (6) in the case of > Calatrava's bridge, produces two parallel worlds but does not unite > them -- just as with parallel Web sites made to offer an alternative > path for people with disabilities. How often have we chanced upon > alternative Web sites that ask the user: "Are you are you non-disabled > or non-seeing?", and if the person answers: "I'm non-seeing", she or > he gets invited to a different viewing, to a different path from the > one used by seeing people." Hmmm... there are also other forms of discrimination against minorities which involve closely related economic mechanisms: - discrimination against developers and users of minority computer operating systems through use of patented or otherwise restricted proprietary data formats - discrimination against people who for whatever reason want or need to avoid indiscriminately leaking personal information over the internet - discrimination against people who for whatever reason have only slow and/or expensive access to the internet, or who are only able to conveneinetly access the internet via a device with a very small screen, such as a mobile phone. (In absolute numbers, this is probably currently actually a majority, but from the perspective of many websites, this is a very small minority of their users, therefore the same economic mechanisms apply.) Claude, is the "universal design" collaboration which you describe defined so generally as to also encompass these aspects of universality of design which are not directly related to disabilities? If yes, I think I'll probably be looking into whether there'd be some mutually beneficial way in which I could join in into that "universal design" alliance... and if not, I'd be interested in discussing whether it would make sense to attempt to initiate a more broadly defined alliance. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Informatics Management and Consulting for Adaptability and Benefit/Cost Optimization in Harmony with Human Rights and Needs ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@digitaldivide.net http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
