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

Re: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

From: Inga Kovalevskaya <ingakov@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 00:21:00 +1030
Message-ID: <CAMH8mbz+nQwsqC-qLQrPwGJq-=A2_yZSy3zZ_PhvMBa-ah+Jcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Dear w3c Customer Service Support Team.

I'd like to unsubscribe from this forum.
Could you please organise it for me?

Regards, Inga



On 18 February 2012 23:10, David Hilbert Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>wrote:

> hmm, optimized for all
>
> On Feb 17, 2012, at 9:11 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote:
>
> Adam,
> 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,
> Karen
>
> 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 13:51:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 February 2012 13:51:31 GMT