Don't you dare to call people without disabilities, "normal users" when working with me or in general, period. This implies people without disabilities are abnormal, simply because you lack the experience, empathy and understanding of how to include those users in your requirements, designs and technology.
@mikeyil Is the term "baseline" more succinct?
Was this brought up to distinguish "normies" from others who'd need adaptive fixes?
@cobaltbluetony I feel like, if you're going to say it, say it. People without disabilities, sighted people, people with complete motor function, people without cognitive disability, hearing people. People who don't use assistive technology. At worst, "most" people because that is not incorrect to say "most" since disability is a minority.
@mikeyil I think the word "abnormal" is the one that got tainted with disdain. "Normalcy" is supposed to be synonymous with baseline, and should not be a character assessment. But we can't use "normal" precisely because of the critical and judgemental connotations associated with "abnormal".
@cobaltbluetony Yeah, you're right. We can't use normal because abnormalcy exists. To your question, even "baseline" would be more appropriate than picking one half of a binary conclusion.
@mikeyil I'm all for advocating this terminology before someone taints it. 😜 😂
@mikeyil I picked up "typical users" from a workshop and have stuck with it
@mikeyil But thinking that through now, it seems like an incorrect usage? Typical of *what*
@timplunkett Might as well say "average" then? You do have a point about... "typical of what?"
@mikeyil In my field we say typical vs. atypical (development). What's your preferred nomenclature?
@lizyuzu I mean to speak personally, I think it just makes sense to say you mean. Sighted users. Hearing people. Even saying most" people makes more sense since statistically, most people in the contexts we're designing for would not have a disability. Though, I don't think majority rules or should.
@mikeyil Totally makes sense!
@mikeyil also don't you dare call a tomato a vegetable, it's a fruit. Tomatoes hate that shit! Seriously though, psychology has an enormous literature on "abnormal psychology", but not a single definition of "normal psychology".
@mikeyil I would add to this... almost all people have experienced, or will experience, some level of 'disability' - even if just through aging. It's more than 'normal,' it's where we're all going.
Even if someone thinks they only care about designing a system for people like themselves, they need to at least think about designing for where they'll be in the future, and maybe through that gain some empathy for other people now.
@masklayer I agree completely.
@mikeyil Love your avatar! I must say that the definition of normal is: the usual, average, or typical state or condition. How is using a word in it's intended function derogatory? I mean no disrespect, this is an honest question. Is it that abnormal has the negative connotation? Because that makes sense to me. Abnormal is almost the equivalent to freak and that is very rude and wrong.
@thedaemon Thank you! My avatar is by Matt Cummings eiffelart.ca
And pretty much what you said. Normal has an adverse, abnormal. So if we describe people without disabilities as "normal" then... their adverse would have to mean that people *with* disabilities are "abormal", right? I know this can be considered reading into it but those words do exist for reasons. Why not just say typical or average instead?
@mikeyil Typical or average does sound better. I honestly think, after more thought, using the word normal about people in general is implying that others are abnormal. Thank you for your response.
Welcome to the first mastodon based community for Philadelphians who ❤️Philadelphia! Think of this instance as a new neighborhood in Philly that anyone can be a part of, because it's online.