disability terminology - "visual disability" vs. "vision disability"

[shawna-slh]

Note: Let's keep this issue focused on "visual disability" vs. "vision disability". Related issues, such as "disability" versus "impairment" and the social model is an important issue that we want to explore, yet separate from this specific issue. Feel free to open separate issues for other terms.

WAI resources such as Introduction to Web Accessibility and How People with Disabilities use the Web - draft revision use the following categories of disabilities:

auditory, cognitive and learning, neurological, physical, speech, visual

WCAG 2 includes:

Accessibility involves a wide range of disabilities, including visual, auditory, physical, speech, cognitive, language, learning, and neurological disabilities.

Adam Cooper brought up an issue with "visual disabilities" versus "vision disabilities" in an e-mail to wai-eo-editors that includes:

It's a minor thing ...

The word 'visual' is about what is seen as in 'visual art'. The word 'vision' is about seeing rather than what is seen as in 'envisioning'. to say something is 'visually impaired', therefore, is tantamount to saying the appearance of that thing is itself impaired. The phrase 'vision impairment' rather than 'visually impaired' or 'visual disability' is used by the World Health Organisation in the International Classification framework of Functioning, Disability, and Health, and by the U.N. more broadly.

---

[Edited:]

Please add to this issue input to inform whether WAI will prioritize considering changing terminology from "visual disabilities" to "vision disabilities".

We are particularly interested in:

1. input from people with visual/vision disabilities/impairments if you are or are not bothered by the terminology "visual disabilities"
2. authoritative references

[shawna-slh]

... W3C global...

Yes, W3C considers terminology from a global perspective.

[updated]

The existing terminology was written by and reviewed by people with disabilities around the world over the last 25 years. W3C continues to be open to changing terminology, when it is important.

(side note: yes, I know that some people prefer 'disabled people' rather than 'people with disabilities'. W3C allows both. I use the terminology that I personally prefer, unless I am addressing someone who prefers different terminology. That topic is not for this issue — this comment is only to try to avoid that tangent in this issue.)

[shawna-slh]

EOWG discussed on 2 June 2023 — apologies for the missing minutes details.

Participants agreed that it is difficult to come to consensus on the best terminology around the world.

A primary question is: How important is this issue for people with visual/vision impairments?

The small number of participants at that EOWG meeting felt that the potential terminology change from "visual" to "vision" is not a high priority at this point.

We are leaving this issue open for additional input, and it is listed For anyone, Work for this Week.

[shawna-slh]

a poll among five or so people on a conference call

agree. That is why we are leaving the issue open and soliciting more input.

In addition to the broad invitation to anyone, we have specifically asked people with visual/vision disabilities within the WAI community to comment.

[mraccess77]

I would add that not all vision/visual disabilities are related to the eye or "vision" - Cortical or cerebral Visual Impairment (CVI) is diagnosed when people show abnormal visual responses that aren't caused by the eyes themselves. https://www.nei.nih.gov/learn-about-eye-health/eye-conditions-and-diseases/cerebral-visual-impairment-cvi

[tome-wilson]

I agree with 100% with https://github.com/w3c/wai-website/issues/786

“Vision” indicates the sense of sight whereas “visual disability” could be mistranslated as “a disability that can be seen.”

[slewth]

This is a difficult subject. Particularly given the issue raised that 'visual disability' could imply a disability that is seen, as opposed to experienced. However, as others have said there are disabilities that relate to vision but are not about sight/eye health. Importantly I'd like to add that these can be missed by some standard impairment classifications. For example, specific light sensitivities.

In this respect, I'd support 'visual' which for me implies a broader impairment group than 'vision'. However, this may not be read/translated in this way by broader groups. As such, which ever the group agrees, I'd suggest this is defined in our materials and signposted if possible.

[Sylduch-Conseil]

Visual disabilitiy or vision disability is not a priority for me. I am ok with visual disability.

[someone-took-my-username-already]

it's not 'vision disability' either. it's 'vision impairment'. W3 is a technical standards organisation . It should ideally be adopting the terminology of global organisations such as the World Health Organisation rather than regional venacular or outcomes from straw polls. The terms in Australia following the ICF are 'blindness' and 'vision impairment as is used in the following WHO fact sheet:

[someone-took-my-username-already]

I'd also be very interested to know whether languages other than English make the same grammatical distinction between vision and visual.

[someone-took-my-username-already]

"However, as others have said there are disabilities that relate to vision but are not about sight/eye health. Importantly I'd like to add that these can be missed by some standard impairment classifications. For example, specific light sensitivities."

Agreed - the distinction has nothing to do with eye health. About a third of the brain is given over to processing visual input and bidirectional communication has been demonstrated between the visual cortex and parts of the eye.

Whether impairment is located in the eye or in related structures (the eye itself is integrated with the brain physiologically anyway) does not move the dial in favour of 'visual' in my view.

On the second point, what are these 'disabilities' that are missed by standard impairment classifications" And which impairment classification standard is this referring to?