I was sharing this post with my Facebook friends and groups, and they said that this was a good idea, but many members he disability community despise the phrase 'special needs', as it has some negative connotations associated with it. They suggested aying 'individuals with disabilities', or something to that effect, including writing d/Deaf people.

Proposal: Accessibility

  • So, now what? Does this require a certain number of votes to kick off an actual description change? Does the person who proposed the site need to implement this? And . . . what's the actual scope of the change? – Jason Bassford Jun 20 at 3:10
  • @JasonBassford Your suggestion has only upvotes, so I have gone ahead and made the change. Keep in mind that the description here is primarily based at defining scope, when the actual site launches there will be more options for defining the site better. – James Jenkins Jun 22 at 13:27
  • 1
    @JamesJenkins Oh, great! I guess, then, the answer is to have upvotes and to wait for somebody to who is able to change it to change it. :) – Jason Bassford Jun 22 at 13:34
up vote 4 down vote accepted

I totally agree with this, although I would recommend people over individuals as it sounds simpler and more friendly to me.

I also believe that the description, in general, is too complicated and could be rephrased to be more succinct and easily parsed—I lose track of the sentence somewhere between its start and its finish.

However, if the main audience is for people with disabilities, getting that phrasing right should be a top priority.

A possible alternative:

Proposed Q&A site for technology issues of concern to people with disabilities or unique requirements. Topics include research, design, manufacturing, usage and regulations related to accessibility.

I added "unique requirements" because people with particular accessibility needs may not have a traditional disability (I just asked a possible question around this).

  • The site description isn't for stating topicality. The first sentence is more than enough. – Nij Jun 16 at 21:57
  • @Nij I was trying to keep the intent of the original description. Are you saying that the original should be completely rephrased? (I'm personally happy with only the first sentence but I was attempting a paraphrase rather than a rewrite.) – Jason Bassford Jun 16 at 22:50

Proposal: Differabilty

As an equal rights activist (UK) for a disabled person I would rather call people differently-abled and have shortened this to "differabled". Most people hate the terms paraplegic, disabled, special-needs, handicapped and some others but so far nobody has objected to differabled because it has positive connotations of being able in so many ways without being a negative label. Some examples are that (myself included) Asperger's gifted folks are all differently-abled from each other and often far more able than Joe Average at doing certain tasks because of their different wiring system in their brain. Others use wheeled devices to navigate te surface of the earth but abnormals invented steps to prevent them from accessing the higher levels in life. Worse still is the issue of the blind who have very interesting differablities to everyone else. What is the point of putting braille on elevator buttons if there is no simple way to point them towards te button in the first place?

Another argument for this is the now famous "Lost Voice Guy" from Britain's Got Talent who cannot speak but tells the best jokes and has the greatest comedy routine I've ever seen... heck, he was only in it for the free parking and was disabled before it became popular, by demand. Cummon! Differabled is not just a description of what people can do but the lengths to which they stretched to achieve the same goals as when they were once able: The Invictus Games comes to mind. The others who were born handicapped (god, I hate that term so passionately!) are just really good golfers but the ones born without regular genetic design outcomes have to overcome greater odds under higher expectations in spite of added obstacles that walking, talking, seing, hearing, feeling, tasting, digesting, smelling folks take for granted.

When a blind man asks a deaf woman for directions, the outcome is likely to be quite interesting without intervention but, the fact that those with seeing eyes are blind to the problems of the deaf and do not hear the issues seen by the blind shows how thick and short-sighted ability-normals (abnorms) are. Compounded by this infallible stupidity of abnorms, the steps taken by governments for equal access are too high for most wheelchairs users to ascend safely if even at all, espescially retrospectively regarding building laws. What good is an Equality Act law if it does not retrospectively require equal access for somebody who cannot get help to enter a shop because there simply is no way to call for assistance from the street?

What good is it if the only people who are allowed to enforce the Equality Act are those who it is designed to protect but they must take each act of discrimination to a court of law to force the abnorms to make an adjustment that meets the needs of the differabled. You see, differabled does not distinguish between disabilities and also encourages abnorms to think more highly of those of wheelchair stature whilst inclusively taking note of how something abnorms do not consider to be a total obstacle to the differabled.

Whilst differabled is not a recognised word, vote it into existence in protest of the labels handed down by abnorms who really have no clue how to not offend the world class differently-abled's environmentally challenged denizens...

The world of disability is caused by the vast majority of people not born or trapped by unfortunate events into a different life, challenge-filled with ignorance, hate, discrimination and disregard because they can walk, hear, see, taste, touch, smell and think without great difficulty yet fail to do so in spite of their observation of such issues.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .