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

Re: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

From: <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:06:23 -0500 (EST)
To: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
cc: Roger Hudson <rhudson@usability.com.au>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.1202170905440.26519@cygnus.smart.net>

maybe with the "mr wheeelie" logo  and appropriate alternative

Bob


On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, David Woolley wrote:

> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:05:11 +0000
> From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
> To: Roger Hudson <rhudson@usability.com.au>
> Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version
> Resent-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:05:45 +0000
> Resent-From: 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 Friday, 17 February 2012 14:07:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 17 February 2012 14:07:22 GMT