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

Re: any suggested alternatives to accessible version

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:37:04 +0100
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, "Roger Hudson" <rhudson@usability.com.au>
Message-ID: <op.v9z032axwxe0ny@widsith-3.local>
Hi Roger, all...

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:36:51 +0100, Roger Hudson  
<rhudson@usability.com.au> wrote:

> From previous research I know that many web users do not understand what
> the term "accessible" means ...

True. I guess that reflects the world at large...

> I am trying to come up with options for the wording of a link to an
> accessible version of a page (or application). Desperate to see if there  
> is anything better than "accessible version".

I think Ramón, Vasu and Priti were going in a direction that makes sense.  
You really want to say what the "accessible" version *is*. It might be a  
simpler layout, easy to use, or something similar. There is no one good  
description, and I agree that "accessible" certainly isn't it...

I understand the idea that you should use the word and people will learn,  
but I think that is the wrong way around. People who know what they are  
looking for will find it, people who don't won't go there if it says  
"accessible". So while teaching something everyone else avoids, you are  
losing visitors who can't understand the site. If you want to explain what  
accessibility is for, do it on the easy-to-use version itself... - that's  
where you welcome people to the accessibility-enhanced version with an  
explanation of what you mean by that. I would advise you to say it in a  
couple of general paragraphs, not a link to Wikipedia, especially if you  
are aiming particularly at older users who are not so familiar with the  
jargon...

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Monday, 20 February 2012 22:37:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 February 2012 22:37:41 GMT