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 21:21:01 -0500 (EST)
To: Carla <carla@accesscapable.com>
cc: "'Adam Cooper'" <cooperad@bigpond.com>, "'Priti'" <priti.rohra@gmail.com>, "'Roger Hudson'" <rhudson@usability.com.au>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.1202172120380.26519@cygnus.smart.net>

all that @@&*$^%@ eye candy...

Bob


On Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Carla wrote:

> Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:17:48 +0100
> From: Carla <carla@accesscapable.com>
> To: 'Adam Cooper' <cooperad@bigpond.com>, 'Priti' <priti.rohra@gmail.com>,
>     'Roger Hudson' <rhudson@usability.com.au>
> Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: RE: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version
> Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:18:26 +0000
> Resent-From: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> 
> You're idea is really the simplest solution indeed, and many websites would
> be much more accessible with some 'switch to basic' layout. Especially those
> that use a content management system.
>
> The complexity comes when these websites are not static, or use advanced
> features including flash. During a review of quite some websites, we
> encountered a few of which the layout is too complex to redesign for
> inclusion.
>
> For the target group of cognitive disabled (and dyslexia, and...) many
> websites fail regarding their visual clutter, information structure and
> content. How to solve that, is difficult to answer (writing alternative
> texts?).
>
> Carla
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Adam Cooper [mailto:cooperad@bigpond.com]
> Verzonden: vrijdag 17 februari 2012 23:59
> Aan: 'Priti'; 'Roger Hudson'
> CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Onderwerp: RE: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version
>
> "disable friendly version" = "render friendly version inoperative". . I
> recall a ludicrous incident attempting to navigate a revolving door with a
> white cane only to be 'assisted' by a well-meaning passer-by who directed me
> to the "disabled door" to which I unthinkingly replied "but if it's
> disabled, how will I get through it?"
>
> perhaps providing a compliant version using an appropriate stylesheet might
> be preferable to providing an entirely distinct version? In which case,
> something like 'switch to plain view' or view 'basic layout' might suit as
> this is the purpose of the link?
>
> universal design is the holy grail , however, as many have already pointed
> out.
>
> My two cents worth ...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Priti [mailto:priti.rohra@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 9:26 PM
> To: 'Roger Hudson'
> Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: RE: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> Thanks for bringing this up! It is an interesting one & it would be fun to
> know what alternatives people can come up with.
> Also good you clear the question up as people's replies were going in wrong
> directions.
>
> Anyways how about "Disable friendly version"? I know its bit too long for
> designer's liking but I am sure they can come with some icons to make it
> attractive and brief.
> Yes, I know people will argue that accessibility is not only for the
> disabled but it is the disabled who benefit from it the most & 'disable' is
> the term widely known to people.
>
> Would love to know what others think about this?
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Priti Rohra
> Freelance Accessibility Consultant
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/pritirohra
> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/priti-rohra/10/8a6/788
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Hudson [mailto:rhudson@usability.com.au]
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 2:58 AM
> 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 Saturday, 18 February 2012 02:22:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 February 2012 02:22:10 GMT