If there existed some form of global consensus across the English-speaking world on what the inoffensive version is, I'd be happy to abide by it. In the meantime, suggesting that people on a venue as global as HN have some sort of a responsibility to follow and observe the random cultural variations in whichever narrow bubble you were referring to strikes me as presumptious and absurd.

I also wish more people valued clear language over these battles of ever more contrived euphemisms. George Carlin has a brilliant sketch on this very issue [1], which is both thoughtful and inoffensive (specifically references "handicapped" around the 5:30 mark).

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o25I2fzFGoY

> have some sort of a responsibility to follow and observe the random cultural variations in whichever narrow bubble you were referring to strikes me as presumptious and absurd

I suggested no such thing. I just pointed out that it felt odd to me to read that. From the rest of the discussion below it's pretty clear that there isn't much of a global consensus. However, it's also clear that, whatever term is preferred, 'handicapped' isn't it.

Might be a straightforward translation for non-native speaker. In my language, we regularly use similar sounding word, with no negative connotations.

I'd guess this is the case here, since the word is spelled incorrectly, too.

In my cultural bubble, handicapped and disabled are used relatively interchangeably, and I'm a native English speaker.

That's one of the reasons I felt it was important to point out. I'm not even sure there is a negative connotation in American English (I have vague recollection that "handicapped parking" is sometimes mentioned in American TV shows). The fact that it's being downvoted to oblivion probably indicates that there is not.

Handicap or handicapped-accessible seems to be widely applied to facilities like parking or restroom facilities. I still sometimes see it used to describe people but disabled appears to be the preferred term in that context.

Speaking as an American.

I'm at least as annoyed by people who say you did something wrong without saying what the right way would be.

What is the current best word to use?

I tried to think of a good synonym (“differently abled” “visually challenged”) but nothing really felt right.

I think the phrasing itself is problematic because it describes some people as broken or less than whole. That puts the emphasis on something wrong with a person rather than something wrong with the system.

Better to talk about the system: “this makes the site less accessible.” Because really, that’s the issue. It’s what you have control over and where the problem lies. Software engineers can change a websites but not the people using them. People should expect websites to accommodate their needs, not the other way around.

Respect is the core principle here. Respect your users and enable them to come as they are. Don’t place the focus on their weaknesses, regardless of what those are or why they have appeared. Focus on how you can build a system that’s accessible to everyone.

> can build a system that’s accessible to everyone.

you can't build something that is accessible to "everyone". It's a myth. Because some people will stray so far away from the "median capabilities you can expect", you can't even imagine their problems or use cases. It's a very, very hard problem and well known in numerous areas of product design.

This is true, but also overly pedantic -- we can give the original poster a more generous reading and assume that they understand that "make this available to everyone" doesn't literally mean accessible to every single person imaginable. ("Your web site isn't accessible to people without computers! Checkmate!") We can work to make our systems more accessible to more people.

> “this makes the site less accessible.”

They problem is that when someone then ask - "to whom", you are left being unable to answer.

Is that really an issue though? A website could be made less accessible to people with low powered devices, slow connections or small screens, their accessibility issues need not be medical.

Practically, there is no way to identify all the potential issues a user of your site might face.

I work for a non-profit that helps disabled children and their families in the USA. Up until recently we were using "special needs", now it's "disabled" or disability. This is what the people with disabilities want to be called currently and I hope this helps.

> This is what the people with disabilities want to be called

Like most large communities, there is less consensus on this than that kind of statement suggests. The terminology doesn't change because everyone in the community flips over night in their preferences, but because the ebb and flow of how many people do each term preferable (or intolerable) ends up changing what is on balance the best (or least bad) term.

In the US, go with "visually impaired." That's an accurate description without any baggage, and it also tells you what needs to be done to make the technology accessible to them.

It also describes people who might have limited sight now, but will have full sight later (recovering from surgery, etc). And that is something that could happen to any of us, so we should be building all our tech to cover at least common edge cases, if resources don't permit covering all of them.

It's probably culture / location dependant. In the UK disabled or lesser-abled would probably be preferred. I'd probably have skirted the issue by saying it may exclude people using screen readers.

Avoiding discussing a particular issue simply because you don't want to refer to people as handicapped or disabled seems absurd to me. Language is a tool, and we shouldn't reduce it's effectiveness simply because we are afraid of offending someone. Some people in the world are disabled, I think it is far more offensive to avoid talking about them then to use the term disabled or handicapped - how do you think it would feel to be a disabled person, and have people think that it is so offensive that they don't even feel comfortable saying that disabled people have a hard time on the modern internet?

I don't think we should avoid discussing the issue at all. But I also feel that groups have the right to determine what they find acceptable as a collective noun. If disabled people in the UK are uncomfortable with the term handicapped then I won't use it; that has been the case for as long as I can remember so it struck me when I read it.

> But I also feel that groups have the right to determine what they find acceptable as a collective noun.

The group of people with disabilities is not one hive mind with a collective opinion of which nouns they prefer: some will like some terms and some won't. Handicapped seems to be generally accepted as inoffensive to most people, so I don't see any reason to not use it.

i agree and is a very neutral term for a wide range of disabilities. now cripple would have some negative connotations to it.

though i suppose context and use of any term could be used to degrade especially something like this which does point to capabilities but because of a condition and specific to the disability.

> "Handicapped" is a word which many disabled people consider to be the equivalent of nigger.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3708576.stm

I wouldn't describe it as neutral at all.

i would not put it in that category but i did address how it could be construed.

how would you describe the term handicap in the form of a lack in capability specific to the disability?

That's your call. I couldn't have been clearer that this applies to my understanding of the majority view within the UK. If those people aren't part of your audience then knock yourself out.

It could very well be true that disabled people are more offended by third parties policing language, especially if the expression was used in a neutral context. Because that can be very humiliating and shifts the topic to something many people want to overcome in their lives.

I was more referring to you saying you would skirt the issue rather than using the term disabled or handicapped. If there is an alternative word that is less offensive, of course there is no problem with using it if it means the same thing.

Ah, I see what you mean. No, the issue I intended to skirt was choosing the most appropriate label, not the whole issue that JS may make websites less accessible.

In 10 years we will be back to preferring "handicapped" as "disabled" slowly slides into offensive territory and we still need a word to talk about this concept. Grandparent was probably just being considerate of future Internet Archive readers.

Yeah, in my culture / location we call them "people that have to go through extra obstacles".

People with disabilities. Emphasises 'people' rather than their disability.

George Carlin on euphemisms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc&feature=youtu.be...