W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2004

RE: Diabetes websites too complicated

From: Access Systems <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:36:02 -0400 (EDT)
To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>
cc: "'Mike Brown'" <mike@signify.co.nz>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0409141028280.27147@smart.net>

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote:

> Mike Brown wrote:
> > Is the "reading age" of a site, assuming it can be measured,
> > an accessibility issue? Is there a limit to how far
> > information can be "simplified" before it loses its usefulness?

of course it is

> Readability is most certainly an access / accessibility issue.  In the
>
> Cognitive issues can be as severe as Downs Syndrome or other severe
> learning conditions (see Jonathan Chetwynd's Peepo site for ideas and
> attempts to connect to this community - http://www.peepo.com/help.html
>
> However, as you suggest, the issue becomes one of providing appropriate
> yet useful information targeted to the appropriate audience; "dumbing
> down" the content  below a certain level impacts on a site's usefulness
> just as severely as a site that is too complex.  Large web sites,

I think this is where a site (especially a complex subject) needs to have
several levels of detail,  the "for more information" button can take a
person to deeper and deeper levels of complexity.

A site like the Diabetes site needs to have the basics, a how to
live/control your D, just what is D, and maybe some life stories and a
complex medical discussion,  all can be in the form of "for more detail"
click/tab etc whatever and every site probably should have the infamous
"FAQ" tab/click

> especially those with broad or mass appeal are always well advised to
> employ an actual editor (of the human kind <grin>) to review content and
> content language to ensure that the "message" is properly crafted to the
> their readers.

I don't think any automated checker has yet been devised that can
adequately determine if a site is properly made, and unfortunately there
are far too few folks avaliable who know how to comprehensively check a
site

about the best I can come up with (and maybe it is something this list
should/could do) is a check list of items to check for...and even then I'm
sure we would leave something out.

I have seen very complex and graphic intensive sites that can't get a
"Bobby" but are very usable. and conversely I've been to sites that have
all sorts of access seals on them and they are unusable.

not an easy answer

Bob


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CONFIGURE YOUR E-MAIL TO SEND TEXT ONLY, see http://expita.com/nomime.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve Neither liberty nor safety",    Benjamin Franklin
-   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
   ASCII Ribbon Campaign                        accessBob
    NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail                   accessys@smartnospam.net
    NO MSWord docs in e-mail                    Access Systems, engineers
    NO attachments in e-mail,  *LINUX powered*   access is a civil right
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged.  They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2004 14:36:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:44 UTC