Re: any suggested alternatives to accessible version

Also just as a side note, "screen reader" for example, may be a bit too
specific considering the number of different disabilities.

+peter


On 16 February 2012 13:08, Pierre Dubois <duboisp2@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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
> ------------------------------
> *From: * Srinivasu Chakravarthula <srinivu@yahoo-inc.com>
> *Date: *Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:21:32 +0530
> *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 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/>****
>
> [image: yahoo_email_sig_apac_v2]****
>
> ** **
>
> *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****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>