W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: any suggested alternatives to accessible version

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:19:31 +0000
Message-ID: <4F3CBC13.1080904@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: Roger Hudson <rhudson@usability.com.au>
CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Roger Hudson wrote:

> 
>  From previous research I know that many web users do not understand 
> what the term “accessible” means when it comes to web content. This 
> appears to be particularly the case with older users of the web.

"easy to use"

The real problem though is that web pages are advertising and in 
advertising you must not use anything that has negative implications 
about your product.  Saying that there is an easy to use version of the 
site implies that the main site is not easy to use (which while probably 
true, is not something that the designer would want to admit, even to 
themselves).  To be suitable for advertising copy, the words chosen must 
not suggest that there is anything wrong with the main site.

"accessible" is a positive word, but sufficiently jargon that it doesn't 
signal anything to the general public whilst still allowing someone 
trained to use such pages to find it.

-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 08:20:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 16 February 2012 08:20:14 GMT