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

RE: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

From: <deborah.kaplan@suberic.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:09:59 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
To: "Mattes, Kurt X1" <Kurt.X1.Mattes@chase.com>
cc: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.WNT.2.00.1202181309390.7876@penitence>
The attempt is to convey, briefly, the concept that "There is a version of 
this website for which effort has been made to maximize usability for people 
who might have difficulties using the primary website, perhaps because it 
relies to heavily on Flash, or non-screenreader compliant / non-keyboard 
accessible AJAX, or is too glitz-heavy for people with cognitive limitations. 
This version of the website offers the core functionality without these 
problems."

There is a word for that.  It is "accessible".  No, not every user who needs 
the accessible version will know the term, but many others will. Meanwhile, 
if you come up with some non-standard term you think conveys the same 
information, you'll lose all the people who know the code word "accessible".

Microsoft Outlook's web application has a <a 
href="http://help.outlook.com/en-us/140/ms.exch.owal.defaultlight.aspx"light 
version</a--- when I started using web Outlook, I had no idea this was the 
accessible version.  (At another point in the options, they  also provide 
this option as "Use the blind and low vision experience", which is another 
example of over thinking it; it's not obvious this is also the keyboard- and 
voice-accessible version for sighted users.)

-Deborah


-- 
Received on Saturday, 18 February 2012 18:10:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 February 2012 18:10:30 GMT