Lewthwaite Sarah
King's Learning Institute, King's College London , UK.
Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36(16):1375-83. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2014.938178. Epub 2014 Jul 10.
Currently, dominant web accessibility standards do not respect disability as a complex and culturally contingent interaction; recognizing that disability is a variable, contrary and political power relation, rather than a biological limit. Against this background there is clear scope to broaden the ways in which accessibility standards are understood, developed and applied.
Commentary.
The values that shape and are shaped by legislation promote universal, statistical and automated approaches to web accessibility. This results in web accessibility standards conveying powerful norms fixing the relationship between technology and disability, irrespective of geographical, social, technological or cultural diversity.
Web accessibility standards are designed to enact universal principles; however, they express partial and biopolitical understandings of the relation between disability and technology. These values can be limiting, and potentially counter-productive, for example, for the majority of disabled people in the "Global South" where different contexts constitute different disabilities and different experiences of web access. To create more robust, accessible outcomes for disabled people, research and standards practice should diversify to embrace more interactional accounts of disability in different settings. Implications for Rehabilitation Creating accessible experiences is an essential aspect of rehabilitation. Web standards promote universal accessibility as a property of an online resource or service. This undervalues the importance of the user's intentions, expertize, their context, and the complex social and cultural nature of disability. Standardized, universal approaches to web accessibility may lead to counterproductive outcomes for disabled people whose impairments and circumstances do not meet Western disability and accessibility norms. Accessible experiences for rehabilitation can be enhanced through an additional focus on holistic approaches to accessibility blending digital and physical solutions, the use of BS 8878 and mixed-method approaches to accessibility benchmarking. Web standards and accessibility conformance should be considered together with user input and the recognition and development of local accessibility and rehabilitation expertize.
目前，主流的网络可及性标准并未将残疾视为一种复杂且受文化影响的相互作用；而是认识到残疾是一种可变的、相反的政治权力关系，而非生理限制。在此背景下，显然有空间拓宽对可及性标准的理解、制定和应用方式。
评论。
塑造并受立法影响的价值观推动了网络可及性的通用、统计和自动化方法。这导致网络可及性标准传达了强大的规范，确定了技术与残疾之间的关系，而不论地理、社会、技术或文化差异如何。
网络可及性标准旨在制定通用原则；然而，它们表达了对残疾与技术关系的片面和生物政治理解。这些价值观可能具有局限性，甚至可能适得其反，例如，对于“全球南方”的大多数残疾人来说，不同的背景构成了不同的残疾情况和不同的网络使用体验。为了为残疾人创造更强大、更可及的成果，研究和标准实践应多样化，以纳入不同环境中对残疾的更多互动性描述。对康复的启示创造可及体验是康复的一个重要方面。网络标准将通用可及性作为在线资源或服务的一种属性来推广。这低估了用户意图、专业知识、其背景以及残疾复杂的社会和文化性质的重要性。标准化的通用网络可及性方法可能会给那些损伤和情况不符合西方残疾和可及性规范的残疾人带来适得其反的结果。通过额外关注将数字和物理解决方案相结合的可及性整体方法、使用BS 8878以及可及性基准测试的混合方法，可以增强康复的可及体验。应将网络标准和可及性一致性与用户输入以及对当地可及性和康复专业知识的认可与发展结合起来考虑。
