If people who have visual and auditory disabilities did not have these disabilities, then the resources would be highly valuable to them, as they are to people who don't have disabilities. However, since they are disabled, these resources are not very valuable. For example, excellent resources that make heavy use of visual information are not useful for people who can't see well.
In other words, the teacher's interpretation is right.
The teacher admitted that he was wrong. What I found through this conversation is that someone being able to speak English fluently doesn't necessarily mean that he or she is smart enough to understand the CONTEXT. In light of the context, the passage highlights the lack of accessibility for the disabled, not the disability itself. Of course, I didn't show you the whole passage. Let me show you.
"Over the last several decades, scholars have developed standards for how best to create, organize, present, and preserve digital information for future generations. What has remained neglected for the most part, however, are the needs of people with disabilities. As a result, many of the
otherwise most valuable digital resources are useless for people who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as for people who are blind, have low vision, or have difficulty distinguishing particular colors. While professionals working in educational technology and commercial web design have made significant progress in meeting the needs of such users, some scholars creating digital projects all too often fail to take these needs into account. This situation would be much improved if more projects embraced the idea that we should always keep the largest possible audience in mind as we make design decisions, ensuring that our final product serves the needs of those with disabilities as well as those without. "
'Otherwise' means "if the needs of the disabled were not neglected"
This interpretation is superior for several reasons:
- Contextual coherence: It directly relates to the previous sentence about the neglect of accessibility needs, maintaining a logical flow in the paragraph.
- Causal relationship: It emphasizes the cause-and-effect relationship between neglecting accessibility and the resulting uselessness of resources for people with disabilities.
- Alignment with overall argument: It better supports the paragraph's main point about the importance of considering accessibility in digital resource development.
- Constructive framing: This interpretation suggests that the problem (inaccessibility) is solvable by addressing the neglected needs, which aligns with the paragraph's call for improvement.
- Inclusive perspective: It doesn't create a divide between people with and without disabilities, but rather focuses on the potential for resources to be valuable for everyone if properly designed.
While the alternative reading ("if there were no disability") offers an interesting perspective, it doesn't connect as seamlessly with the surrounding context and the overall message of the paragraph.
You are good at English simply because it is your native language, not because you are particularly smart. You just happened to be born in a country where English is spoken. However, when it comes to understanding the context of a text, you are not better than non-English speakers.
In the end, my son and I won the argument with the school, and the other English teachers here also agreed that we were right. It might be beneficial for you to improve your logical reasoning skills to better understand the flow of a text.
너희들의 논리력에 실망해서 다시는 이곳을 이용하지 않을 것 같아. 이 밑에다가 계속 열폭하는 댓글 달아봐야 소용없어. 네들 말은 이제 안들을 거거든. 차라리 AI에게 물어보는게 이득인 듯. ㅋㅋㅋ 안녕!!
