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

Re: any suggested alternatives to accessible version

From: Pierre Dubois <duboisp2@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:08:51 +0000
Message-ID: 1502331481-1329394131-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-637131692-@b1.c28.bise6.blackberry>
To: "Srinivasu Chakravarthula" <srinivu@yahoo-inc.com>,"Roger Hudson" <rhudson@usability.com.au>,"w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Hi Roger,

I agree with Srinivasu about Users don't need to understand the term "accessible".

Accessible don't means having a version of your content without any interactivity such as plain text. You can use the progressive enhancement technique to get nice dynamic feature on your website. 

There exist an open source Accessible javascript web toolbox to support progressive enhancement, released under MIT license. Each released widget, classified by category, are and was verified to be WCAG 2.0 level AA compliant. Take a look at http://ircan-rican.gc.ca/projects/gcwwwtemplates



:-)

Pierre Dubois
819-773-2881

~ Envoyez de mon telephone

-----Original Message-----
From: Srinivasu Chakravarthula <srinivu@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:21:32 
To: Roger Hudson<rhudson@usability.com.au>; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Subject: RE: any suggested alternatives to accessible version

Hi Roger,
"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."
Srini: Users don't need to understand the term "accessible" it is developers, designers and product owners who need to understand. Just building awebsite that comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines should work for all. If you are building older_browsers - I don't mean, older_users, then you should use authoring tools that work on those browsers. Let me know, if you have any specific case.

"I am trying to come up with options for the wording of a link to an accessible version of a page (or application). Desperate to see if there is anything better than "accessible version"."
Srini: If you are forced for such a version, ever, may be you can word as "simplified version" or "classic version". Having said, that I love to have one version for all.

Makes sense?
-Srini


Regards,
Srinivasu Chakravarthula

Senior Manager, Inclusive Design, Yahoo!

Let's create an inclusive world!
Yahoo! Accessibility Blog<http://accessibility.yahoo.com/> | Yahoo! Accessibility Code Library<http://yaccessibilityblog.com/library/>

e-mail: srinivu@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:srinivu@yahoo-inc.com> im: vasugroupmails twitter: @vasutweets
direct 918030774332    mobile 919900810881
Yahoo! Accessibility on Twitter<http://twitter.com/yahooaccess> | Me on Twitter<http://twitter.com/VasuTweets> | Me on LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/in/srinivasuc> | My virtual home<http://www.srinivasu.org/>
[cid:image001.gif@01CCEC94.7A926070]

From: Roger Hudson [mailto:rhudson@usability.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:07 AM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: any suggested alternatives to accessible version

Hi

>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.

I am trying to come up with options for the wording of a link to an accessible version of a page (or application). Desperate to see if there is anything better than "accessible version".

Any ideas or suggestions?

Thanks

roger

Roger Hudson
Web Usability
Mobile: 0405 320 014
Phone: 02 9568 1535
Web: www.usability.com.au
Blog: www.dingoaccess.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rogerhudson

Email: rhudson@usability.com.au






image001.gif
(image/gif attachment: image001.gif)

Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 12:09:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 16 February 2012 12:09:28 GMT