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

Re: Administrative interfaces

From: Dr Jonathan Hassell <jonathanhassell@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:19:05 +0100
Cc: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-Id: <5E560BEB-EB73-475E-86D1-0EC343FE93B2@yahoo.co.uk>
To: Harry Loots <harry.loots@ieee.org>, Srinivasu Chakravarthula <lists@srinivasu.org>, Régine Lambrecht <Regine.Lambrecht@tipik.eu>
Interesting discussion.

And interesting definitions of 'usability' and 'impact on usability' being used here...

It's absolutely right to say that you should always work to ensure accessibility doesn't have a negative effect on the 'prettiness' (or aesthetics) of the design of an interface.

And you should always work to ensure that making something accessible doesn't have a negative effect on the usability of an interface.

But accessibility always has an impact on usability. Usability and accessibility should be considered at the same time when creating an interface, as there are times when making an interface more accessible will also make it more usable (for example, when making sure an interface is as simple as it can be), and there are other times when making an interface more accessible can make it less usable or aesthetically pleasing for non-disabled audiences (for example, choosing a brown on yellow colour scheme will allow pages to be viewed by the greatest majority of people, but the aesthetics won't be to everyone's taste).

For more on this, check out my slideshare on 'Bringing together usability and accessibility' at http://www.slideshare.net/jonathanhassell/how-bs8878-brings-together-usability-accessibility

Disabled people don't want accessible interfaces, they want usable ones like everyone else (see: http://www.hassellinclusion.com/2011/12/accessibility-myths-2011/)

Best regards

Jonathan

On 11 Sep 2012, at 09:50, Harry Loots wrote:

> 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 11:18:48 UTC

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