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

Re: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

From: David Hilbert Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 07:40:37 -0500
Cc: Adam Cooper <cooperad@bigpond.com>, 'Priti' <priti.rohra@gmail.com>, 'Roger Hudson' <rhudson@usability.com.au>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-Id: <23D1F205-A259-4AEF-9723-17E3AFEB140E@comcast.net>
To: Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
hmm, optimized for all

On Feb 17, 2012, at 9:11 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote:

ROFL!  How dare you be so logical?
but you illustrate why disabled, Never mind that no one is there disability, and the term applies to 8 zillion things having nothing to do a computer, is a poor choice.  People are already running into disabled form submit buttons and the like, which actually do not work.
Basic is a fine idea, Google uses this for their mail structure and it draws in those who want to avoid the pop up clutter.
> From a pr standpoint the common expression extends the use of your work. 
More cents on the pile,

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Adam Cooper wrote:

> "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.

Jonnie Appleseed
With His
Hands-On Technolog(eye)s
Touching The Internet
Reducing Technology's disabilities
One Byte At A Tie
Received on Saturday, 18 February 2012 12:41:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:43 UTC