[thelist] RE: US census count of "disabled"

Joel D Canfield joel at spinhead.com
Sat Jun 9 10:56:37 CDT 2001

And the real point is, if coding for these users is optional where you live,
how many visitors do you want to make your site difficult for? Even if this
20% figure is double what you might consider the 'real' number, that's quite
a few people to alienate. And if it's mandatory where you live, what are you
required to do? I think who they are and how they're defined only becomes
important if you're coding for particular disabilities, as opposed to

joel at spinhead.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: thelist-admin at lists.evolt.org
> [mailto:thelist-admin at lists.evolt.org]On Behalf Of Nick Koleszar
> Sent: 09 June 2001 16:03
> To: thelist at lists.evolt.org
> Subject: [thelist] RE: US census count of "disabled"
> A fifth is rather a high figure, especially as, in America, the definition
> is probably rather distorted, compared to normal societies.

Chill out, Nick.  The UK's OPCS has a similar number, and
for what it's worth, they're counting people with impaired
mobility, brain function or sensory acuity.  That's impaired,
rather than absent - consider for example that almost no
'blind' people have no sight at all.


[Who's quite badly arthritic, btw]

More information about the thelist mailing list