FodnessMemo35

The primary ethical issue in play with my project is how individuals with disabilities are an underserved community in cyberspace. The educational system is not geared toward integrating accessibility at the core of software design, web browsers do not require code to be accessible or standards-compliant in order for websites to display, and programs like DreamWeaver do not require elements like the ALT tag on images to be populated to provide a textual description of the content of the image. Other laws in place, such as the ADA, require accessibility in physical architecture, but not in cyberspace architecture. This issue leads into a double-bind which affects me: whether to support legislation mandating certain standards and ways of coding, or whether to support the openness of the Internet, free from government interference. On the one hand, it would be great if there was a legal structure in place to force everyone to make their websites accessible. On the other hand, if such a policy were implemented, it would be another step down the path of regulation of cyberspace software, and could potentially limit new innovations in cyberspace technology. My struggle with my project will be to find a middle ground where legislation can be passed that works like the ADA, where buildings are required to have certain features, but the features are not so limiting as to prevent innovations in architecture.

I will also have to develop or adopt a language to talk about individuals with disabilities. I am currently struggling with what to call them as I discuss them in my work. Should it be "blind person," "visually impaired," or what? I want to avoid using terms that are considered offensive, but I also don't want to shackle myself to being too politically correct, because I think that there is such a thing as too much political correctness. This decision will affect how I refer to a number of my interviewees and stakeholders.