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

Re: Administrative interfaces

From: Harry Loots <harry.loots@ieee.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:50:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CA++-QFfEU7UV+nG0RYReMOX1zt9kXYJJ4+nHfMT-5suDdOh9uQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Srinivasu Chakravarthula <lists@srinivasu.org>
Cc: Régine Lambrecht <Regine.Lambrecht@tipik.eu>, David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
1. Accessibility is a must in any user interface, whether Website (WCAG),
Authoring Tool (ATAG), or User Agent (UAAG);
2. Laws on equality also apply to employees (and labour laws with respect
to equal treatment will also apply).


BTW: I think that while it may be more pleasant to work with an interface
that's aesthetically pleasing (pretty), it won't affect the usability.
Usability is primarily an objectively viewed art; while aesthetics is
primarily a subjectively viewed art.

Regards, Harry



On 11 September 2012 09:19, Srinivasu Chakravarthula <lists@srinivasu.org>wrote:

> Hi All,
> Absolutely agree! Accessibility "must" not impact design / usability.
> That's the reason, one should think of accessibility right at the design
> stage itself and code semantically and with right techniques for whatever
> technology that one prefer to use.
>
> Best,
> -Vasu
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Régine Lambrecht <
> Regine.Lambrecht@tipik.eu> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Srinivasu Chakravarthula - Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/VasuTweets
> Website: http://www.srinivasu.org | http://www.learnaccessibility.org
>
> Let's create an inclusive web!
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 08:51:32 UTC

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