W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2003

Re: a word for 'accessible', that people get.

From: Sandra Vassallo <S.Vassallo@e-bility.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:25:53 +1000
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030726095531.02271748@e-bility.com>
To: "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
At 10:13 AM 25/07/2003 +0100, you wrote:

>I am doing some work for a large UK company that sells a range of
>'accessible' products alongside its standard product range.  They are
>currently under the category of 'accessible products' - BUT in user testing
>when looking for accessible products NOBODY look in this category!
>'Accessible' is a great word for people in the industry, but currently it
>doesn't mean a great deal to anyone else.
>
>Can anyone suggest another term?  We tried 'special needs' but the client
>isn't happy with that because the phrase has negative connotations in the
>UK.

Hi,

I like the idea of including the items in the most appropriate mainstream 
category (by product description) eg:

* phones (xyz brand big button phone),
* hardware (abc brand amplifier or visual alert signals)
* emulators eg TTY

Maybe the quick search categories could also include an accessible design 
options, but my experience is that most people would start looking by 
product description rather than a discrete category that is seperate to 
other 'standard' products.

People with disabilities also benefit from features such as cordless 
phones, handsfree/speaker phones and mobile phones (illuminated displays, 
vibration call alert, voice dial etc) - would these be classified as 
accessible or standard?

Cheers,
Sandra.


...

e-bility Pty Ltd - Inclusive IT
Web Accessibility & Usability Solutions

tel:    (02) 9810 2216
mob:    0414 765 881
email: S.Vassallo@e-bility.com

e-bility web:   http://www.e-bility.com
Inclusive IT:   http://www.inclusiveit.com.au/  
Received on Friday, 25 July 2003 20:25:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:10 GMT