Clarify inclusion

[fantasai]

This edit pulls some of the improvements of PR #171 without dividing into two separate points with independent lists of diversity attributes.

---

Preview | Diff

[cwilso]

This should probably be looked at from the lens of "does this satisfy the original issue #169?"

[fantasai]

@cwilso I don't think it does, but I wanted to not lose the improvements you proposed in your PR even if we close that issue with no change, or decide to defer it.

[celestaria]

@fantasai @cwilso What about economic situation, and age, including older and younger people? I found it on the WAI: https://www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/accessibility-usability-inclusion/.

accessibility for people with disabilities;
access to and quality of hardware, software, and Internet connectivity;
computer literacy and skills;
economic situation;
education;
geographic location;
culture;
age, including older and younger people;
and language.

[chaals]

some of this is an improvement already, I think some needs more improvement

[chaals]

What about economic situation, and age, including older and younger people

I think those are important different perspectives, and I think we should be clear about including them (right now they are in the catch-all "and more". The issue raised - #169 - was in part about what to say explicitly - do we want to be exhaustive, divide perspectives along different axes, make the document short, ...? I'm not sure there is a right answer.

[tantek]

I believe the changes being suggested here touch on specific approaches being discussed in #169 and don't have consensus there yet. Some of these look like improvements to me as well, however since there are already a bunch of opinions as to how to solve #169, I'd rather discuss those in that issue's comments directly instead of spread out across multiple PRs attempting to address the issue.
At this point, given the variety of opinions and approaches being expressed, I'd like to hold off on any PRs for #169 until we have found a way to reach consensus in our approaches to addressing it, in the comments in #169.
Thus defer (or even close) this PR while capturing the salient (or implicit) points/perspectives in this PR as deliberate changes with reasons in a comment in #169.

[tantek]

deferring (labeled as such) for now with editor+chair consensus, rather than closing, in the hopes that relevant points of discussion here are copied/moved to #169 by the PR author, who is then encouraged to close this PR without change.

[fantasai]

Hi @tantek I'd prefer to take this PR (as I think it's strictly an improvement over the existing text). I agree it doesn't address #169--it wasn't intended to. It was only intended to make sure we pick up on the obvious editorial improvements in PR #171 even if we don't take the proposed split.

[tantek]

As requested, I have taken another closer look at this PR and find that despite the attempts at readability improvement, it is actually a big step backwards in one particular way.

The issue is titled: "Clarify inclusion"

Whereas this PR ironically actually REMOVES both instances of "inclusion" from this text.

(Emphasis added)

That's an unacceptable substantive regression so I'm a strong -1 on this PR.

I can live with "defer", but as noted, I'd prefer (PROPOSE) to close without changes, and request that any proposed improvements in this text be instead added as a comment to issue #169 for others to discuss and seek a broader consensus than 1-2 people.

Note that neither this PR nor the issue it is purporting to help advance has either initially or subsequently been labeled a "blocker" or "needed for Note" (or suggested as such in comments therein), so in good faith I expect that it will NOT be used as a reason to block the CFC to publish an updated Vision Note.

[mgendler]

I don't see the changes as editorial improvements. I support Tantek's proposal to close without changes and we can maybe revist after note publication if there is clarifying work in issue #169

[cwilso]

Suggested change

	we strive to actively include their participation
	we strive broaden inclusion

[tantek]

Thanks @cwilso I appreciate the repair attempt. Rather than rushing a last minute (<24h to AB telcon) fix to this PR (which has not been labeled as a blocker, and which you as chair and I as editor agreed was ok to defer) before publishing an updated NOTE, I'd prefer (and believe it is more appropriate) for us to take time to address it within the context of the issue, explicitly including the non-AB participants in the discussion (ideally finding consensus) both in this PR and issue #169.

[cwilso]

I made one suggestion above to re-introduce "inclusion". Without that change, I have to agree with Tantek and Max that this is a regression in readability. With that, I'm comfortable with it being a slight improvement - as it separates the inclusion and diversity thoughts better - though it does not address the issue that started this. :)