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

RE: Administrative interfaces

From: Régine Lambrecht <Regine.Lambrecht@tipik.eu>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:10:42 +0200
To: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FDBE151C8C378544A93886B9BA497069BC5F240D77@tipik-mail>
Hello all,

I think accessibility should not impact on usability; and a pretty interface is part of its usability. For identical functionalities, an employee will be more productive (and happy) if working with a pretty interface. There has been experimental research on this: prettiness is part of usability. So you should care about its visual prettiness anyway.

But accessible doesn't mean ugly, as we know :)

Régine Lambrecht
E-fficiency Coordinator
Prevention Advisor
________________________________________________
Tel. +32.2.235.56.62
 

www.tipik.eu 
Tipik Communication Agency S.A.
Avenue de Tervueren 270 • B-1150 Bruxelles
Tel. +32.2.235.56.70 • Fax +32.2.235.56.99
Tipik is a Sword Group Company

 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

-----Original Message-----
From: David Woolley [mailto:forums@david-woolley.me.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 9:00 AM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Administrative interfaces

Christian Biggins wrote:
> 
> I was wondering whether or not an administrative interface for a website 
> should also be compliant? 
> 
> Personally I would think it should, but clearly there is a fairly 
> weighty argument against the additional work, especially if you are 
> controlling who can and cannot access the interface. Granted if you hire 
> somebody who relies on the use of assistive technologies, you would need 
> to revisit, but would it be a requirement?
> 

Ultimately this is a question for legislators, but in my view it should 
be easy to produce A or AA compliance for such an administrative 
interface, because you do not have to worry about branding and making it 
visually pretty.

-- 
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 Tuesday, 11 September 2012 07:06:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:30 UTC