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

Re: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:05:11 +0000
Message-ID: <4F3D7D97.6010205@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: Roger Hudson <rhudson@usability.com.au>
CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Roger Hudson wrote:

> 
> My concern is that this alternate version is often accessed via a link which
> includes the word "accessible". This might be meaningful to people who work
> in the web industry, but I know many general web users don't know what it
> means. 
> 
My point was that the general public are not supposed to follow these 
because they might actually prefer the result, thus bypassing all the 
careful psychological design of main page.  (I didn't make a note of the 
article, but one designer on the CSS list did actually admit how they 
use things like colours for psychological reasons.)

Once you establish that they are only supposed to be noticed by the 
people that they are aimed at, and those people may have cognitive 
disabilities (and not necessarily particular severe ones) having a fixed 
user interface element that they can be trained to easily recognize 
(unlike buttons on typical designed web sites), but will not distract 
the primary audience, is about the best compromise you will get, so 
using the currently established terms is what should be used.


-- 
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 22:05:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 16 February 2012 22:05:44 GMT