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

RE: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

From: Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:55:16 -0500 (EST)
To: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
cc: 'Roger Hudson' <rhudson@usability.com.au>, 'David Woolley' <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.64.1202161744230.96232@server1.shellworld.net>
Greetings all,
Just w wandering upon this thread.  I had a feeling that the goal was a 
different choice of language.
I agree with the idea, especially since even those responsible for web 
access do not understand or create  accessible version of their sites. 
Likewise the advantages can go beyond just adaptive tools to things like 
those using older laptops or cell phones.
Alternative may convey more, but what about universal?
Since from a pr standpoint the desire is a door that is universally open 
to all?
Say a caption like, having a problem with the site? try this alternative 
version.
or try the universal version.
People might try it and discover the advantages regardless of life 
situation.

Besides, accessible is a deeply individual thing  since shared label never 
equals the same life experience.  I am still wondering who on earth 
decides when something is legacy if the individual using it is 
accomplishing their computer goals in a productive independent fashion as 
they define this?
Just my take,
Karen

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Sailesh Panchang wrote:

> Well my email addresses this  issue and suggests alternatives.
> Did you check it out?
>
> Sailesh Panchang
> Deque Systems Inc. (www.deque.com)
> 2121 Cooperative Way, Suite # 210
> Herndon, VA 20171
> Phone: 703-225-0380 (ext 105)
> E-mail: sailesh.panchang@deque.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Hudson [mailto:rhudson@usability.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:28 PM
> To: 'David Woolley'
> Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version
>
> Hi All,
>
> Thanks for the suggestions. But it seems from some of the responses that the
> intention of my original post wasn't clear enough. I have explained this to
> a few respondents off-list, but I thought it would be useful to say more on
> the list.
>
> I am mainly interested in the term "accessible" (and "accessibility") and
> not whether or not an accessible version of something should be provided. Of
> course, like everyone, I agree that wherever possible content should be
> accessible and providing an alternate "accessible" version avoided.
>
> However, sometimes it is not possible to make something accessible and WCAG
> 2.0 allows for an alternative accessible version to be provided in these
> cases. This could be, for example, because an advanced feature of a web
> content technology, which is not sufficiently supported by ATs, is being
> used. Or, at the other extreme, an application that is to have a short
> web-life is dependent on a legacy system that it is difficult or impossible
> to make sufficiently accessible.
>
> 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.
>
> Also, many sites contain a page which describes the accessibility features
> of the site, or which provides information to help people who might have
> problems accessing the content (e.g. how to use the browser to increase
> text-size). Once again, the link to this page often includes the words
> "accessible" or "accessibility" and I know from my research (and that of
> other people like David Sloan) that many web users don't understand what
> this word means. If you are interested in this in relation to older web
> users, I touched on the subject in a presentation I gave at CSUN last year -
> slide and transcript on my blog
> http://www.dingoaccess.com/accessibility/improving-web-accessibility-for-the
> -elderly-csun-slides-and-transcript/  (slides 45 and 46).
>
> In short, the aim of my question is to see if we can come up with some
> alternatives to the words "accessible" and "accessibility" that are likely
> to be more meaningful to the wider public.
>
> Thanks
>
> Roger
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Woolley [mailto:forums@david-woolley.me.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, 16 February 2012 7:20 PM
> To: Roger Hudson
> Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: any suggested alternatives to accessible version
>
> 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 22:55:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 16 February 2012 22:55:45 GMT