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 09:02:53 +0000
Message-ID: <4F3CC63D.5080608@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: Roger Hudson <rhudson@usability.com.au>
CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
David Woolley wrote:
> 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 

The other special thing about this link, is that it is the only part of 
the legal small print for which you cannot justify the use of low 
contrast, small fonts, although you can still get away with putting it 
in the top right or bottom bar areas, generally used for things you 
didn't really want on the page.  That means designers will want the text 
to be as short as possible.

-- 
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 09:03:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 16 February 2012 09:03:29 GMT